Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.8
The Dialogue Gospel is itself clearly Gnostic (particularly §§26, 28, 55, 84) and
draws on material known to us only through the Gospel of Thomas. 140 Tuckett
finds clear evidence that the Dialogue Gospel shows awareness of Matthew's and
probably also Luke's finished Gospels. 141 More interesting are the parallels with
John's Gospel, not only in content but also in the implication that the Dialogue
Gospel also constituted developing reflection on earlier tradition of Jesus' sayings
(most clearly evident in §§8, 9, 53). But Koester once again betrays his
Tendenz when he argues that John knew 'the more traditional Gnostic dialogue,
which the Dialogue of the Savior has preserved in its more original form'. 142 For
the evidence suggests rather that the Dialogue Gospel (source of the Nag
Hammadi Dialogue of the Saviour) is already a well-developed reflection on earlier
tradition, whose earlier form is only occasionally visible. Rather like the
Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John, therefore, the Dialogue Gospel provides
evidence of the different ways the sayings tradition was developed. But
even more than in the case of Thomas it is doubtful whether the distinctive features
of the Dialogue Gospel provide earlier or more original versions of Synoptic
traditions. And much less than in the case of the Gospel of John does it provide
evidence of rootedness in the earliest forms of the Jesus tradition.
b. The case regarding the Apocryphon (or Letter) of James 143 is similar but
even less strong. Koester again pushes the evidence too hard when he argues that
Apoc. Jas. represents an earlier stage in the sayings tradition presupposed in the
discourses of John's Gospel. 144 The document is clearly Gnostic in character
Hammadi Library 244-59, and by B. Blatz in Schneemelcher and Wilson, eds., New Testament
Apocrypha 1.300-11; also Cameron, Other Gospels 38-48; Miller, ed., Complete Gospels 343-
56. The codex is badly damaged and the text often fragmentary, but the dialogue between the
Lord, Judas, Matthew, and Mary suggested by Koester makes a coherent whole and accounts
for about two-thirds of the Nag Hammadi document (§§4-14, 19-20, 25-34, 41-104; Dial. Sav.
124.23-127.19; 128.23-129.16; 131.19-133.21 [?]; 137.3-146.20).
140. Catalogued in Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 176-85, and see his conclusion
(186-87).
141. C. M. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986)
128-35, referring particularly to §53 (Matt. 6.34; 10.10, 24) and §§3, 16, and 90 (Luke 21.8;
17.20-21; 11.1).
142. Ancient Christian Gospels 180.
143. Translation by F. E. Williams in Robinson, ed., Nag Hammadi Library 29-37, and
D. Kirchner in Schneemelcher and Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha 1.285-99; Elliott, Apocryphal
New Testament 673-81 (with bibliography); analysis in R. Cameron, Sayings Traditions
in the Apocryphon of James (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), and Koester, Ancient Christian
Gospels 187-200.
144. Ancient Christian Gospels 191-96, 200, largely following Cameron, Sayings Traditions.
Since the earlier tradition cannot be separated out as a unified first-century source,
Crossan includes Apoc. Jas. only in his fourth stratum (120-150 CE) (Historical Jesus 432).
168