jewish-christian gospels and syriac gospel traditions final clause (Nτ ε/σιν),thesequence“brothersandmother,”^78 and on
the basis of the “original,” decided to drop Matthew’s “in heaven” after
the “Father.” TheGospel of Thomas, for its part, would have stuck quite
close to the original form of the tradition. Although a process like this
is not totally impossible, it has to be asked if it is really believable that,
in the synoptic/Jewish-Christian trajectory, the independent tradition
would have been hanging around and conveniently available for so many
editors who used only parts of it whereas inThomas’ trajectory, the tra-
dition would have remained almost intact from pre-synoptic times until
the composition of the Coptic edition of theGospel of Thomas.
The hypothesis about harmonizing traditions provides an easier expla-
nation. The final clause in theGospel of the Ebionitesis understandable
as a combination of LukanNτ ε/σιν...H πιντεςwith Matthean
τ. λημα τ πατρ!ς μυ. These two phrases are also conflated in
Clem..(seeabove).AlthoughClem..issometimestakenas
an indication of the independent character of the tradition,^79 it speaks
more for the hypothesis of harmonizing tradition. As Helmut Koester
has shown, several citations inClem. are harmonizations of Matthew
and Luke. According to him, the above conflation of the “Matthean and
Lukan redactional changes of Mark’s text” inClem..areoneexam-
ple of this secondary harmonization.^80 Consequently, the combination of
“those here who do” with “the will of my Father” in theGospel of Thomas
should also suggest the existence of the same harmonizing tradition in
theGospel of Thomas.^81 BecauseThomasand theGospel of the Ebionites
also share the same order “brothers and mother,” it is difficult to explain
the similarities betweenThomasand theGospel of the Ebionitesas the
result of two independent harmonizations that would agree only inci-
dentally. Thus, the dependence of these gospels on the same harmonized
(^78) Patterson himself has not noted the same order of “brothers and mother” in the
Gospel of the EbionitesandThomas.
(^79) Patterson , .
(^80) See Koester , –, –; Koester , , .
(^81) However, Koester does not draw this conclusion. InSynoptische Überlieferung
(Koester , –), (whenThomaswasnotyetavailabletohim?)hearguesthat
Clem. . and the parallel in theGospel of the Ebionitescombine Matthean and Lukan
editorial elements. InAncient Christian Gospels(Koester , ), he summarizes
his earlier arguments, referring to his “more detailed documentation” inSynoptische
Überlieferung. Nevertheless, when in theAncient Christian Gospelshe discussesGos.
Thom. (p. ), he does not deal with the existence of the “Matthean” and “Lukan”
elements in logion or with its connections toClem.and“theGospel of the Ebionites.”