jewish-christian gospels and syriac gospel traditions Because I have dealt with Origen’s passage in detail above (Chap-
ter .), I will only summarize the points that explain how the expres-
sionsAνρωπεandστρα1ε,ς πρ!ςended up in both Origen’s fragment
and theGospel of Thomas.
Three Rich Men in Origen’s Fragment
In the case of Origen’s fragment, the knowledge of the Diatessaronic
sequence is generally acknowledged. One indicator of the sequence is the
expression “another rich man” which shows that the passage presupposes
a sequence of at least two stories about rich men. In addition, several
readings common to the fragment and Diatessaronic witnesses have been
discovered.^108 However, what is not usually noticed is the infusion of
ideas and phrases from the two surrounding stories into the fragment
preserved in Origen’s commentary. As in the Parable of the Rich Fool
(Luke :–; the first story), the rich man in Origen’s fragment is
a man whose house is “full of many good things” (domus tua plena est
multis bonis; cf. Luke :ψυ68,>6εις πλλ& γα%). Furthermore, he
is addressed as “man” (homo) like in Luke : (Aνρωπε). The third
story, for its part, is reflected in the idea that the rich man should know, on
the basis of thelaw andthe prophets,totakecareofhisbrothers, the sons of
Abraham, just like the rich man and hisbrothers,the “sons of Abraham”
(the rich man addresses Abraham as “father”) should know merely on
the basis ofMoses and the prophetshowtotakecareofpoorpeoplelike
Lazarus.
The above observations about the impact of the surrounding stories
make clear the route along which the Lukan addressAνρωπεtraveled to
end up in theGospel of the Hebrews: It was adopted from the “first” story
about the rich man (Luke :–), from verses that are also paralleled
in logion . But where did the expression “he turned to” come from?
In Luke’s gospel, the Lawyer’s Question is in many respects a twin to
the story about the rich man. Both stories open with a similar question
“(Good)teacher,whatmustIdotoinheriteternallife,”andbothdeal
with obeying the Jewish law. Eusebius’s canon tables, for instance, give
both Luke :– and :– as parallels for the story about the rich
man.^109 The Lawyer’s Question shares several features with the passage in
Origen’s commentary.^110 All these similarities show that the framer of the
(^108) See, for instance, Klijn , –.
(^109) For Eusebius’ canon tables, see Nestle & Aland , –.
(^110) In addition to the participlefaciens, which Luke : and : share with Origen’s