chapter five
but the second half (Matt :b) is regarded as a Matthean addition.^92
If this is correct, then also the latter part of Thomas’ saying shows
knowledge of Matthew’s redaction.
Thomas’ Relation to the Diatessaron and Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions
No Jewish-Christian gospel parallel has survived for the first part of
Thomas’sayingbut,aswasnotedabove,QuispelhaspointedoutaJewish-
Christian parallel in thePseudo-Clementine Recognitions.^93 The parallel
shares withThomasthe expressions “scribes and Pharisees,” “receiving,”
“keys” and “hiding.” A closer look atThomas’ relation to Luke also reveals
thatThomas’ readings agree especially with the variants in Old Latin,
Old Syriac and Diatessaronic textual traditions. Thus, we are dealing here
with a classic example ofThomas’ relationship to Tatian’sDiatessaron.^94
Quispel has explained the similarities by assuming that bothThomasand
theDiatessarondepend on a Jewish-Christian gospel.
ThomasandPs.-Clem. Hom. (..) refer to the “those who wish to”^95
enter in contrast to “those who were entering” (τς ε/σερ6μ νυς)of
Matthew and Luke.^96 The reading is also to be found in some Diatessa-
ronic witnesses (Persian, Tuscan and Venetian harmonies).Thomas’plu-
ral “keys” is also attested in Diatessaronic witnesses (Persian harmony,
Ephrem and Aphrahat). However, the plural is used by Justin as well
(Dial..).
The reading “have hidden” instead of Luke’s canonical “have taken
away” is attested in D and several Old Latin (abcdeqr^2 )andOldSyriac
(Sys.c) manuscripts as well as in Ephrem’s commentary on theDiatessaron
and in the Arabic version of theDiatessaron.^97 As such, the agreement
of these Eastern and Western witnesses to theDiatessarondoes indicate
(^92) See Robinson, et al. , –; Uro , –. Luz , assumes an
addition in QMt.
(^93) Quispel , –. For the summary and assessment of Quispel’s arguments, see
Petersen , –.
(^94) See Baarda , .
(^95) For an overview of the connections of logion toHomiliesandRecognitions,see
Baarda , . The connections were already pointed out by Quispel , .
(^96) The Greek reconstruction of logion here follows the wording of Matthew and
Luke but because the fragment is so badly damaged, the reconstruction remains hypo-
thetical.
(^97) See Petersen , .