chapter five
second story about a rich man in theGospel of the Hebrewsconsulted
both the story about the rich man and the Lawyer’s Question. When
he consulted the Lawyer’s Question in Luke :–, he probably also
found the expression “he turned to” in Luke :. This is the same verse
where Quispel saw the “unique” stylistic similarity for logion and the
Gospel of the Hebrews.
All the above observations indicate that the fragment in Origen’s com-
mentary is not presynoptic and it is clearly from a harmonizing gospel.
Consequently, the New Two Gospel Hypothesis which this volume pro-
poses, attributes the passage to theGospel of the Hebrews.
Three Rich Men in Thomas’ Source?
There is no conclusive evidence which would make it absolutely clear that
the people who passed onThomas’traditionsmusthaveknownthesame
collection of passages as theGospel of the Hebrewsbut there are several
observations which speak for this hypothesis.
First, the parallel to the story about the Rich Fool is to be found in
logion . This means that, in theGospel of Thomas(in logia and
), there is parallel material for the whole Diatessaronic story about
the “first” rich man. Second, both these logia include Diatessaronic read-
ings. Especially logion —Thomas’ Rich Fool—is a classic example of a
case whereThomas’ readings crop up in several Old Latin and Old Syr-
iac translations and Diatessaronic witnesses.^111 Third, in theGospel of
Thomas, the Rich Fool also opens a cluster of logia where rich people,
“businessmen and merchants” are criticized. We might note in passing
that “marked animosity against business” was one of the features that
indicated to Quispel a close connection between theGospel of Thomas
and theGospel of the Hebrews.^112 Fourth, the other two Diatessaronic
stories—the Rich Man’s Question and the Rich Man and Lazarus—are so
clearly connected to Jewish tradition and observance of the Jewish law
that their absence in theGospel of Thomasis no surprise (cf. logia , ,
passage in contrast to Matthew and Mark, the phrasing of Jesus’ rhetorical question
is similar. Origen’s passage reads: “dixit ad eumdominus:quomododicis...quoniam
scriptum est in lege.”Luke : reads in the Vulgate: “Dixit ad eum:in legequidscriptum
est quomodolegis.” Interestingly, the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark do not
mention at all “what is written in the law.” Furthermore,Origen’s passage and the Lawyer’s
Question do not discuss individual commandments as all the synoptic gospels in the Rich
Man’s Question do. Instead, they concentrate only on the (double) love commandment.
(^111) See Baarda , .
(^112) Quispel , .