Seeking the Imperishable Treasure. Steven R. Johnson

themes indirectly derived from the Gospel of John itself.44

Jesse Sell rejected Brown’s thesis (and his caution), arguing that Thomas was directly dependent upon John.45 Unfortunately, as Riley has pointed out, “he makes no comment on why the author of Thomas should never quote a saying or sentence from John, although the GTh is half full of such ‘quotations’ from the Synoptics.”46

Helmut Koester has approached the Thomas-John relationship from the direction of genre development. Koester has argued in a series of studies that the Gospel of John represents a development of the dialogue or discourse genre two steps removed from the Gospel of Thomas—that is, two steps beyond the genre of Thomas, not prior to it.47 In these studies, Koester deals especially with the gospels of Thomas and John, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the Apocryphon of James. According to Koester, the Gospel of Thomas “exhibits the first stage of transition from sayings collection to dialogue. The Dialogue of the Savior shows the initial stages of larger compositions.”48 Koester further argues that John “contains fully developed dialogues and discourses. Earlier stages could be reconstructed by using the analogies of the Gospel of Thomas and the Dialogue of the Savior, both with respect to form and structure and with respect to themes and topics.”49 Koester calls this earlier stage the Dialog as Exposition of Sayings (“Dialog als Spruchauslegung”) and includes the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Apocryphon of James, and the Book of Thomas as Nag Hammadi texts belonging to this form.50 Yet, the Apocryphon of James is seen by Koester as possibly dependent upon the Gospel of Thomas, and the form of the Gospel of Thomas shows us how the Dialogue of the Savior has combined sayings in the construction of discourses.51 Furthermore, the Dialogue of the Savior is even less developed than the Gospel of John in terms of discourse development. Koester concludes:

1. The speeches and dialogs of John’s gospel are composed on a greater scale than hitherto received and transmitted sayings of Jesus. 2. The sayings dialogs from the Nag Hammadi writings as well as previously known apocryphal gospel material have preserved such sayings independently of the Gospel of John and thus provide a means to better discern the sayings that are foundational to the Johannine dialogs and speeches.52

At this point, Koester makes what many have considered to be a radical claim for the Gospel of Thomas: “A date in the second half of the first century C.E. can certainly be assumed for an older version of this writing.”53 What is often missed in this claim, however, is the fact that Koester is not claiming that the Gospel of Thomas as represented by the Coptic manuscript is to be dated this early.54 Rather, he argues for an earlier version of the sayings collection. Such a qualified claim fits with the data collected in the recent comparisons of Thomas to synoptic sayings parallels noted above. Koester is usually careful not to make an outright claim that the Gospel of John has used the Gospel of Thomas.55 Most recently he has suggested that Thomas and John have shared a common tradition, developing it in different directions.56 However, he is clear that he thinks the author of John is combating gnostic responses to the teaching of Jesus and the search for life—gnostic responses reflected in the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of James, and the Dialogue of the Savior.57 More to the point of our survey, Koester argues that “these dialogues were shaped by a theological interpretation of Jesus’ sayings that is comparable to that of the Gospel of Thomas, a theology that emphasized the recognition of one’s divine self and the return to one’s heavenly origin.”58

Stevan L. Davies returned to the thesis of Evelyn-White that the Gospel of Thomas as a saying collection derived from an early stage of the Johannine community.59 This sayings collection was developed by the author of John (à la Koester) in the discourse material of the gospel. Where Davies appears to depart from Koester is in his insistence that the Gospel of Thomas is not gnostic but, like John, relies on and develops the Jewish wisdom tradition.60 Rather than being about a return to one’s heavenly origin, the Gospel of Thomas is about a return to the pre-Fall state of Genesis creation.61

Riley has argued that the Gospels of John and Thomas represented separate and distinct communities that were in dialogue, but that were also in fundamental disagreement over aspects of christology and soteriology.62 That they were in dialogue is evident by the many similarities in cosmology, literary symbolism, and, especially, anthropology. The Gospel of John gives specific indications of the conflict, however, in its portrayal of Thomas as first doubter, then believer in the physical resurrection of Jesus. More specifically,

The Doubting Thomas pericope is evidence within the Gospel of John for the prior existence of the community of Thomas. The elements present and positions countered in the pericope cohere well with those in the Gospel of Thomas, and lead to the conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas itself was already at some stage of completion, either written or oral, and that its contents were known to the author of John, probably through verbal contact with members of this rival community. In addition, the Gospel of Thomas contains evidence of reciprocal debate with the community of John, although in a form which predates the Gospel.63

April D. De Conick agrees wholeheartedly with Riley that analysis of John reveals “a discourse between the Thomasine and Johannine Christians”—one that reflects a dispute over soteriology.64 However, she argues this for very different reasons. She has argued that the Gospel of John contains a polemic against Thomasine ascent mysticism.65 In John’s insistence that the disciples cannot follow Jesus where he goes, she sees an argument against Thomas’ call to mystical ascension to the place where Jesus is. She also refutes Riley’s understanding of John 20:24–29 as an argument for the fleshly resurrection of Jesus. She sees the exchange between Thomas and Jesus as an example of a common topos of identifying the hero through touch, and argues that John 20:29 “criticizes visionary experience in favor of faith.”66

Ismo Dunderberg questions whether the argument has been demonstrated that the Gospel of John was written in part as polemic against a Thomas community. He is not persuaded largely because the conflict exists on an implicit level in the two gospels.67 Dunderberg argues that there are problems with Riley’s thesis related to the inconsistent use of Judas/Thomas terminology in the Thomas tradition, the lack of a distinctive characterization of Thomas in John, and problems Dunderberg sees with Riley’s analysis of the Doubting Thomas pericope in John (John 20:24–29).68 While he is right that the case has not been proven, none of the problems noted are decisive.

Dunderberg extends his critique