8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

1/13

Ron CAMERON

WesleyanUniversity, Middletown, CT

MYTH AND HISTORY

IN THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

CelIe contribution aborde Ie probleme de la relation entre my he et his-

toire sous l'angle de la creation de mythes et de l'histoire sociale des

cercleschretiens despremiers temps. Deux caracteristiquesde l'Evangile

de Thomas suggerentque c'est 'experiencesociale qui fournissait l'occa-

sion pour celIe activite imaginative et pour celIe production litteraire.

D'abord, les paroles de l'Evangile de Thomas sont formulees de sofIe

qu'elles demandent une interpretation pour devenir efficaces. Ensuite,

plusieurs paroles de l'Evangile de Thomas font reference au travail et

aux peines et atigues necessaires our creer et cultiver l'ethos du groupe.

Ces ogia meritent une attention particuliere, car on y voit integree la

creation des mythes ondateurs dans un discours pedagogique (nutoeiu).

Prenant en compte celIe caracteristique,e propose de mettre ensemble

nos connaissances e la tradition textuelle avec des reflexions -certes

encore provisoires -sur son histoire sociale afin de comprendre l'une

dans a lumiere de l'autre.

This essayaddresses he problem of myth and history in terms of

mythmaking and social history in early Christian circles. Two features

in the Gospel of Thomas suggest hat social experience s the occasion

for imaginative activity and literary production. First, the sayings in

Thomas have been formulated so that they require interpretation in

order to become efficacious. Second,several sayings in Thomas refer to

the labor or toil requisite to creating and cultivating a group ethos.

Those sayings deserve particular attention, for they locate the myth-

making of the gospel within an established discourse of natoeta. By

paying attention to these eatures in the text, I propose to bring what is

known about the textual tradition in line with plausible, though prelimi-

nary, reflections on its social history, in order to understand one in light

of the other.

I wish to address the problem of myth and history -not,

however, by rehearsing the usual distinction between repetition

and uniqueness, circularity and linearity, but by reframing the

issue in terms of mythmaking and social history. Rather than

interpret the Gospel of Thomas by allusion to a gnostic myth

said to be presupposed-though not expressed in the text, or

4pocrypha 8, 1997,p. 193-205

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

2/13

194

R. CAMERON

by conflation with the narrative gospelsof the New Testament, I

shall argue that Thomas is best understood as the product of

early Christian mythmaking and social formation. I understand

mythmaking to be part and parcel of the way humans have of

constructing and construing the world. Mythmaking describes

the way in which people make the world work, place themselves

in relation to their historical past and social present, negotiate

structures of purity and power, produce conviction and schemes

of meaning, define the boundaries of shared codes and conven-

tions, and meditate on the differences between symbolic and

social worlds. Religion as mythmaking reflects thoughtful,

though ordinary, modes of ingenuity and labor. As such, religion

is concerned with the human quest for intelligibility, with taking

interest in the world and making social sense, without recourse

to mystification or special pleading.

Mythmaking is an important category for the historian of reli-

gion. As a descriptive generalization it provides theoretical

control to one s investigation by being capable of handling both

similarities and differences in any comparative analysis.

Approached with the social processesof community formation

in mind, mythmaking presents a constructive way to engage in

«the task of redescribing Christian origins from the perspective

of a social history of religion ...not only to rearrange the p~eces

in a more comprehensive and comprehensible history, but [also]

to rethink the making of early Christianity as a religion ».2

Accordingly, in order to test the thesis that «social experience

[is] the occasion for imaginative activity and literary produc-

tion »,3 t will be helpful to compare the processesof mythmak-

1. This article is an abbreviated version of an essayoriginally published

as «Mythmaking and Intertextuality in Early Christianity», in

Elizabeth A. CASTELLI nd Hal TAUSSIG, ds., Reimagining Christian

Origins.. A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, Valley Forge, PA:

Trinity Press International, 1996, p. 37-50. For a critique of «the pro-

blem of myth and history », usually expressedas an apologetic « distinc-

tion between repetition and uniqueness, circularity and linearity», see

Jonathan Z. SMITH,«The Unknown God: Myth in History », in IDEM,

Imagining Religion.. From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago Studies in

the History of Judaism), Chicago and London: University of Chicago

Press, 1982,p. 66-89,145-156.

2. Burton L. MACK, «.Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revising Christian

Origins », Semeia 55 (1991), p. 32; see IDEM, «On Redescribing

Christian Origins », Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 8

(1996), p. 247-269.

3. Burton L. MACK, A Myth of Innocence..Mark and Christian Origins,

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988,p. 15; cf. p. 19,n. 8, p. 21,23.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

3/13

195YTH AND HISTORY IN THE GOSPEL OF mOMAS

ing in early Christian circles. In this essay, herefore, I will de-

scribe certain features of mythmaking in the Gospel of Thomas.

By paying attention to the rhetorical functions of this text, I will

seek to bring what is known about the textual tradition in line

with plausible, though preliminary, reflections on its social histo-

ry, in order to assess ne in light of the other.

The place to begin is with sayings in Thomas that display the

distinctive markers of social formation. By comparing those

sayings with their parallels in the synoptic gospels and other

antique literature, we will be able to chart the similarities as well

as account for the differences. Moreover, by tracing a sequence

of intertextual relations, we may be able to address «the inner

history of the various religious traditions »4 eflected in the texts.

Finally, by «emphasizing placement at some juncture of social

history », we exercise «control in the investigation. [For] where

sayings reflect upon particular configurations of social situation

or concern, one may be close to the [actual] circumstance of

composition ».5

The designation of the Gospel of Thomas as «hidden

sayings», whose « interpretation » provides the elixir of life, indi-

cates that these pericopae have been «formulated so that they

require interpretation in order to become efficacious ».6There is

thus a direct correlation between the production of this text and

the skills needed to interpret it correctly. According to the pro-

logue, the secret sayings hat the living Jesusspoke are recorded

in writing by his twin brother Thomas. Correspondingly, in

saying 1, «the reader is to penetrate the opacity of the written

word by means of a hermeneutical key which would unlock the

secret of life ». That key is proposed programmatically in saying

2, which describes by way of a sorites nothing less than « a pro-

cess of sapiential research, » in which «interpretation and sal-

vation coincide »: Therefore, since the Gospel of Thomasbegins

with a statement which promises that «whoever finds the inter-

pretation of these sayings will not taste death» (Gos. Thom. 1),

followed by an injunction that «whoever seeks should continue

4. Jonathan Z. SMlrn, «The Social Description of Early Christianity»,

Religious StudiesReview1 (1975), p. 21.

5. Burton L. MACK,«The Kingdom Sayings n Mark », Foundations and

FacetsForum 3,1 (1987),p. 19.

6. John S. KLOPPENBORG,he Formation of Q: Trajectories n Ancient

Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity),

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987,p. 301.

7. Ibid., p. 305.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

4/13

196

R. CAMERON

seeking until he finds» (Gos. Thorn. 2), our task is to look for

pericopae in the text that refer to how one seeks and finds:

whether by analogy, example, exhortation, or demonstration. In

the Coptic text, the next reference to «finding» appears in the

parable of the fisherman (Gos. Thorn. 8).8 That is significant, for

it is striking, though scarcely noticed, that many of the parables

in Thomas refer to the labor or toil requisite to creating and cul-

tivating a group ethos. Inasmuch as such references are an expli-

cit feature of mythmaking, it seemsbest to begin our own labors

with a redescription of the parables attributed to Jesus.

My analysis will differ from most studies of both Thomas and

the parables, which have been concerned primarily with ques-

tions of authenticity, textual dependence, and literary criticism. I

will argue instead that themes broached in the parables enable

us to locate, identify, and trace a set of pedagogical metaphors

controlling the discourse of the Gospel of Thomas. In order to

demonstrate this thesis, let us begin with salient features of the

parable of the sower:

Jesus said, «Note A sower went out, filled his hand, and

cast. Some seeds ell on the path; the birds came and gathered

them. Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and

did not produce heads of grain. And others fell on the thorns;

they choked the seed, and worms ate them. And others fell on

good soil, and it bore good fruit; it yielded sixty per measure

and one hundred twenty per measure. » (Gos. Thorn. 9)

The parable of the sower s carefully constructed according to

a repetitive pattern of threes. The most obvious differences be-

tween the version in Thomas and its parallel in Mark 4 : 3-9, 13-

20 occur in the second section of the parable, which describes

the seed which fell on the rock. Mark disrupts the structured

symmetry, which Thomas preserves, to present two conflicting

images -immediate «scorching}} and eventual «withering}} -

in order to align the parable with an elaborated apocalyptic alle-

gorization which depicts «tribulation or persecution}} that must

be faced (cf. Mark 10 : 30).

Three other details are important for our understanding of

this pericope. First, the very compositional structure of the

parable, which emphasizes not the actions of sowing or harvest-

8. By contrast, there is a reference to « inding » in the Greek version of

saying 3, which deviates from the Coptic in stating that «[whoever]

knows [himself will] discover this» (P. Oxy. 654.16-17).

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

5/13

197

Y1H AND mSTORY IN THE GOSPEL OF mOMAS

ing but the consequencesattending the appearance of seemingly

innocuous natural causes,means that « the fate of the seeds s all

the more noteworthy» (cf. Gos. Thorn. 57).9 Second, Thomas

states explicitly that, when seed fell on « good» (No-NOYM)oil, it

was the soil -not the seed -that bore «good» (No-NOYM)

fruit. Third, the metaphorical image of agricultural endeavor,

especially that of sowing seed,was used as a standard instructive

analogy for the inculcation of 7tutOEiu«< eaching, culture») in

the Greek and Roman periods. Two examples, of the many

which could be cited, will have to suffice :10

Antiphon Irg. 60

.I believe that the primary thing in human life is education

(7tUiOEUO t; education was a difficult and

demanding task requiring discipline, hard work, and years of

training to imitate rhetorical models selected from the illustrious

authors of the classics.The sower, however, ignores «the: essen-

9. MACK,Myth of nnocence,. 154;ct. p. 155,160,164.

10. Ct. Hippocrates,Lex 3; Seneca,Ep. 29.1-2;38.2; Ben. 4.9.2; Vito

beat. .2; Quintilian, nst. orat.5.11.24; .3.75.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

6/13

198

R.CAMERON

tial moment of labor », focusing instead on «beginnings and

endings» as «events of consequence» that « determine the fate

of the seed » but which do not preoccupy the sower. Concern for

the fate of the seed, and with defining the ethos of group mem-

bership as good, indicates that some «social history is under

review», a «history whose harvest is being imagined and af-

firmed » by means of a parable about the reception of instruction.

The parable of the sower was thus designed to foster an under-

standing of social formation and cultural heritage through an

imaginative meditation upon «the early history of the Jesus

movements ».11 n the Gospel of Mark, any references to labor

inspired by the parable s agricultural imagery were erased, in

order to highlight beginnings and endings as part of an apocalyp-

tic scenario. The Gospel of Thomas,on the other hand, does not

develop the sower s pedagogical metaphors to represent an indi-

vidual s labor, but evokes them to signify its own senseof culture.

Indeed, the description of the «good» soil and «good» fruit in

Thomas suggests hat the persons who told this parable unders-

tood themselves as productive and cultivated a set of distinctive

terms to symbolize the ethos they represented.

Similarly, in the parable of the mustard seed, he cultivation of

the kingdom is compared to the situation of seed nurtured in

fertile soil:

The followers said to Jesus, «Tell us what the kingdom of

heaven resembles. » He said to them, «It resembles a grain of

mustard seed. smaller than all seeds, but when it falls

on tilled soil, the soil produces a large plant and provides shel-

ter for birds of heaven. » (Gos. Thorn. 20)

Four details of this pericope are significant for our purposes.

First, this is the only parable in Thomas in which the subject of

comparison is not a person.12 Second, though the proverbial

smallness of the mustard seed is mentioned in the text of

Thomas, and though the plant produced by the soil is described

as «large» (NOCS ),homas does not elaborate a contrast be-

tween the smallest seed and the greatest shrub. That contrast is

peculiar to the version in Mark 4: 30-32 (and reproduced in

Matthew 13 : 32). Third, not only is the soil described here as

«tilled» (P 2WB), but it is precisely because the soil has been

11. MACK, Myth of Innocence,p. 160, 156,155.

12. See Ron CAMERON, Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of

Thomas », Foundations and FacetsForum 2,2 (1986),p. 3-39.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

7/13

MYTH AND m~TORY IN THE GOSPEL OF ~OMAS

cultivated that it -not the mustard seed -is said to produce

nobly.13Fourth, Thomas does not develop any eschatological

imagery, based on citations from or allusions to the Hebrew

Bible, to claim that its seed was destined, from minuscule begin-

nings, to grow up into a mighty tree in which birds could nest.

That imagery is portrayed in the versions of the mustard seed

related in Q 13:18-19 and Mark (cf. Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:6;

Daniel 4 : 10-12,20-21). In fact, the term for «shelter» (CKE1TH)

that is preserved in Thomas appears elsewhere in sapiential

contexts, to designate the protective haven designed for persons

who seek wisdom (cf. Sirach 14: 26-27).

The mustard seed -whether of the wild or the domesticated

variety -was thus a creative metaphor appropriate for reflect-

ing and resignifying «the [Jesus] movements' own sense of

[social] history ».14Having no eschatological reference, the

parable in the Gospel of Thomas « makes most senseas an anal-

ogy to a freshly noticed movement », to the kingdom as a « shared

ethos» being cultivated. Subsequent versions in Q and Mark

are best understood as elaborations by persons entertaining an

apocalyptic imagination: first in a setting of parody in Q, to lam-

poon «the great tree of apocalyptic vision »; then with all« ves-

tige of humor» gone, in Mark's «very serious prediction that the

kingdom of God will eventually become the greatest dominion »

of all,15 eplacing other cultures that are regarded as rival.

In the mustard seed, the soil was able to produce a «large»

plant because it had been «tilled ». Comparison with other

parables in the Gospel of Thomas suggests that such terms

were used thematically as descriptive designations to character-

ize the ethos being evoked in the stories. In the parable of the

fisherman, for instance, the themes of effort and productivity

are developed through a portrayal of discernment and expertise:

And hesaid, «What humanity resembles is a wise fisher-

man who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea

full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine

large fish. He cast all the small fish back into the sea and

chose the large fish without any effort. Whoever has ears to

hear had better listen » (Gos. Thom. 8)

13. This change of subject is indicated clearly in the Coptic, which

switches pronouns from the feminine (referring to the «grain of mus-

tard seed») to the masculine (referring to the «soil»).

14. MACK, Myth of Innocence,p. 153; cf. p.I24-125.

15. MACK, « Kingdom Sayings n Mark », p. 33, 34.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

8/13

200

CAMERON

Several details of this parable are noteworthy. First, Thomas

tells the story of a fisherman, twice characterized as «wise»

(rMN2HT), whose situation is said to be comparable to humani-

ty s. Second, the fisherman s activity unfolds according to a

threefold sequenceof finding a «fine» (Nb..NOYM)large» (NO6)

fish, discarding all the other small fish, and choosing the large

one without hesitation. Third, though the fisherman is depicted

as plying his trade, he is explicitly said to have chosen he large

fish «without any effort» (XWrlC 21ce). Fourth, the parable

closes with an admonition to pay attention in order to under-

stand the point (cf. Gos. Thom. 21,24,63,65,96).

Thomas sparable differs from the parallel in Matthew 13 : 47-

48, 49-50 in every one of these details. Matthew features a seine

net in his story in order to provide an analogy to what the king-

dom of heaven is like, contrasts «good» and «bad» fish of

every kind, and rearranges the order of events to one of choos-

ing and then discarding, owing to his apocalyptic allegorization

which depicts the separation of the bad from the good (cf.

Matthew 8: 12; 13: 30, 40-42; 22: 10-13; 25: 30). There are,

however, other versions of this parable that, like Thomas, tellthe

story of a fisherman (cf. Babrius, Fable 4). Clement ofAlexandri

for example, quotes a parable found in «the gos-

pel» that makes reference both to a fisherman s activity and tothe

kingdom:

What the kingdom of heaven resembles s a person who cast

a net into the sea and, from the multitude of fish that were

caught, chose the better. (Strom. 6.11.95.3)

The stereotypical character of this parable is reflected in the

fact that it forms the theme of a double-stich proverb which

Clement had cited previously:

Among a great number of small pearls there is the special

one, and in a great catch of fish there is the beautiful one.

(Strom. 1.1.16.3)

The proverbial superiority of the one fine fish among the

many is reflected in the parable in Clement, which reports that

from the multitude that are caught the better are (to be) chosen.

Differentiating between the one and the many is thus intrinsic to

the parable of the fisherman.

Such a distinction is also a fundamental feature of the parable

of the pearl:

Jesus_said,«What the kingdom of the father resembles s a

merchant who had some merchandise and who found a pearl.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

9/13

MYTH AND HISTORY IN nrn GOSPEL OF THOMAS

That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and

bought for himself that one pearl. You also: seek out the

unfailing and enduring treasure, where no moth comes near to

consume nor worm destroys. » (Gos. Thorn. 76)

Here, the sequence of finding, selling, and buying is closely

related to the fisherman s finding, discarding, and choosing.

Moreover, Thomas s description of the merchant as «shrewd»

(CARE), which is not found in the parallel to this parable in

Matthew 13 : 45-46, corresponds to the characterization of the

fisherman as «wise », suggesting that both parables functioned

similarly: as self-referential analogues, taken from the world of

common experience, that illustrate the resourcefulness indica-

tive of individuals invited to grasp the one thing that makes a

difference (cf. Gos. Thorn. 107). The: distinctive character of

what should be prized is explicated in an appended saying about

the treasure (cf. Q 12: 33), which exhorts the reader to diligence

in seeking he most precious gift that can be found.

We are now in a position to assess he two most striking -

and overlooked -features of Thomas s parable of the fisher-

man: the fisherman s activity is said to resemble the situation of

humanity, and the fisherman s labor results in a choice made

without effort. To illustrate what humanity is like by referring

to the craft of fishing, and to identify the fisherman on two

occasions as «wise », indicate that anthropological concerns

were at issue. In Greek popular culture, fishermen were mem-

bers of a skilled profession that was thought to require a special

type of knowing, a «-cunning intelligence» which the Greeks

designated as ~flttC;. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant

have studied the forms of cunning intelligence in depth, examin-

ing its profile and tracing its role from Homeric beginnings

through ten centuries of creative usage in Greek culture and

society. MflttC; incorporated a wide range of practical wisdom

applied to contingent circumstances thought to be ambiguous,

risky, or threatening in some way. Fishermen -along with arti-

sans, hunters, merchants, navigators, physicians, and rhetori-

cians -needed cunning intelligence for strategies that would

enable them to survive and prosper in situations whose out-

come could not be determined in advance. Accordingly, ~flttC;

encompassed «a complex but very coherent body of mental

attitudes and intellectual behaviour »,16 ombining acutenessof

16. Marcel DEllENNE and Jean-Pierre VERNANT,Cunning Intelligence

in Greek Culture and Society, Chicago and London: University of

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

10/13

202

R.

CAMERON

perception, agility of mind, deceptiveness in appearance, deft-

ness of touch, keenness of eye, quickness of wits, skill in repar-

tee, subtleness of thought, vigilance in anticipation, and wiliness

of ways. Certain animals, such as fish and the fox, were con-

sidered «endowed with ~f)'tt

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

11/13

203

YTH AND HISTORY IN THE GOSPEL OF mOMAS

leaven. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas states clearly that the

woman, having taken a little leaven and hidden it in some

dough, «made» (3.3.*) it into «large» ( 0[6']) loaves. Thus, she

serves as a constructive figure whose own efforts illustrate the

productive endeavors of the group. In this respect, her actions

may be contrasted with those of the woman portrayed in the

parable of the empty jar, which immediately follows the leaven

in the text:

Jesus said, « [What] the kingdom of the [father] resembles

[is] a woman who was carrying a uar] full of meal. While she

was walking far from home [along the] road, the handle of the

jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [along] the

road. She was not aware of it; she had not known how to toil.

When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found

it empty. » (Gos. Thorn. 97)

Juxtaposing the woman with the jar with the woman with the

leaven s instructive in terms of what results from their labors. In

the leaven, the woman's work enlarged upon what had been

hidden; in the empty jar, the woman's efforts were frustrated

because she did not understand what toil meant, and thus, had

nothing left to convey. The Gospel of Thomas s explicit at this

point: not having «known» (EtME) how to «toil» (atcE), this

woman was not «aware» (COOYN)hat her jar would be found

empty.19 n this respect, what has been ascertained from her

situation may be contrasted with how things are achieved in the

parable of the assas~in,which immediately follows the empty jar

in the text:

Jesussaid, «What the kingdom of the father resembles s a

man who wanted to kill a nobleman. He drew a dagger in his

house and thrust it into the wall, in order to know whether his

hand would hold firm. Then he murdered the nobleman.»

(Gos. Thorn. 98)

The distinctive concerns of this parable involve the assassin's

determInation to execute the task he «wanted» (OYWW) to

19. This point has been obscured in most translations, which take 21C~

to be a noun, not a verb, and render the passage: «She did not realize

it; she had noticed no accident» (so, e.g., Thomas O. LAMBDIN, rans.,

«The Gospel According to Thomas », in Bentley LAYTON,ed., Nag

Hammadi Codex 11,2-7 ogether with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. 01: 4926(1),and

P. Oxy. I, 654, 655, vol. 1 [Nag Hammadi Studies 20], Leiden: Brill,

1989.D. 89).

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

12/13

204

R. CAMERON

accomplish. A consequence of that resolve is the dramatic

emphasis placed here on preparation: the assassinworked out a

plan and practiced it at home, so that he would «know» (EIME)

for certain if he could carry out the deed. The deliberate focus of

the parable on preparedness through practice suggests hat the

assassins intended as an instructional figure, illustrative of the

premium placed on proper effort. Such an understanding s sup-

ported by the selection of certain figures in antiquity to exempli-

fy a discourse about pedagogical values. Philo, for example,

regularly interpreted the patriarchs to signify a triad of education-

al virtues: Abraham attained knowledge by «teaching », Isaac

was «self-taught », acquiring wisdom «naturally» and «without

toil », and Jacob obtained perfection through «practice ».20

Similarly, in the three parables grouped together near the end of

this text, the Gospel of Thomas depicts the performance of

representative individuals to treat the themes of effort and pro-

ductivity, discovery and knowledge, determination and practice,

and imagination and achievement.

The pedagogical metaphors we have observed in these sayings

are reprised in a final pericope, the parable of the lost sheep:

Jesus said, «What the kingdom resembles is a shepherd

who had one hundred sheep. One of them, a large one, wan-

dered off. He left the ninety-nine and sought that one out

until he found it. Having accomplished his labors, he said to

the sheep, I desire you more than the ninety-nine. » (Gas.

Thorn.107)

Here, the theme of seeking and finding is combined with a

concern for preferring the one to the many, with acknowledging

a « desire » (OYOW*) or the « large» (NO6) sheepabove all else.

Whereas the version of this parable in Q 15 : 4-5, 7 emphasizes

joy in recovering what was lost, the Gospel of Thomasproclaims

the shepherd s «labors» (21CE) o be laudable, announcing their

significance explicitly when the shepherd speaks tenderly to the

sheep. In describing the task of discovery as a special labor of

love, Thomas affirms the importance of striving passionately for

the most cherished possessionof all (cf. Wisdom 6: 11-20; Gos.

Thom. 69, 109). Therefore, in cultivating these parables Thomas

20. Cf. Philo, Sacr.5-7; Congr. 34-38; Mut. nom. 12; Som. 1.166-73;Abl:

48-56; los. 1; VitoMos. 1.76; Praem. poen. 24-51.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300951] --

13/13

205YTH AND mSTORY IN THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

was engaging n a critical assessment f the meaning of culture,

construed as excellence undertaken in pursuit of wisdom?1

In seeking out the one thing that truly makes a difference -

whether through cunning, expertise, nsight, practice, or research

-the persons who crafted the roles represented by he char-

acters in the Gospel of Thomas were actively engaged in a dis-

tinctive kind of toil, in the task of creating and cultivating a

group ethos. Accordingly, the elaborate plays on the theme of

labor in the parables of this gospel function in two distinct but

identifiable ways: as imaginative metaphors for developing and

construing the sayings attributed to Jesus, and as d~scriptive

designations for characterizing the group's own efforts at myth-

making. Whoever grasps these two intertextual endeavors is

granted the honor found at the heart of the Gospel of Thomas:

«How fortunate is the person who has labored (21ce) and found

life » (Gos. Thorn. 58) 22

21. See he fine descriptive definition of « wisdom » in Burton L. MACK,

«The Christ and Jewish Wisdom», in James H. CHARLESWORTH,d.,

The Messiah: Developments n Earliest Judaism and Christianity,

Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992,p.195-196.

22. I am grateful to Peggy Hutaff, Karen King, and Chris Matthews for

their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.