The purpose of this page is to record places where it initially seems to me that The Gospel of Thomas is familiar with the Gospel of Luke. I am recording them in case I want to look at them more closely at a later time. I realize, of course, that it may be possible to explain the data otherwise, and having read Plisch’s commentary on Thomas with profit I suspect that this might be a good place to look for alternative explanations. Conversely, I suspect that the works of Gathercole and Goodacre would provide more (and presumably better) examples of probable familiarity with Luke.

Luke 4:24 / GThom 31: Both versions use the term δεκτός . It seems likely to me that the use of this term reflects Lukan redaction  since I think Luke probably introduced it to create a connection to his use of δεκτός in 4.19. And though it would not be impossible that Thomas made use of this term independently, it seems more likely to me that Thomas shows a familiarity with Luke’s version of the saying here. Contrast Plisch (p. 100): “In terms of tradition history, there are obviously certain relations between Gos. Thom. 31 and Luke 4:23-24, which however no longer appear accessible.”

Luke 5.33-35, 36-39 / GThom 104, 47: As Wolter, ad loc, observes the combination of fasting and prayer in Luke 5.33 (diff. Mark 2.18), may well reflect Lukan redaction, in which case the presence of this combination in GThom 1o4  could indicate Thomas’s familiarity with the Lukan version. Similarly, As Wolter, ad loc, notes, the combining of the double picture word about the incompatibility of old and new with the saying about old and new wine may be specifically Lukan, in which case the presence of this combination in GThom 47 could indicate Thomas’s familiarity with the Lukan version.

combination of the double picture word about the incompatibility of old and new with the saying about old and new wine that can be identified as specifically Lukan.

combination of the double picture word about the incompatibility of old and new with the saying about old and new wine that can be identified as specifically Lukan.

Luke 8.16 / GThom 33.2-3: the purpose clause of seeing the light is only found in Luke 8.16 (and 11.33) and Thomas. This could suggest that GThom is dependent on Luke, though I don’t think it is “ganz klar” as Wolter, ad loc, suggests. Plisch (103) argues that the version from the Gospel of Thomas is younger than its parallel in Luke.

Luke 8.17 / GThom 5.2: both versions have the future, which may indicate that Thomas is dependent on Luke (see Wolter, ad loc, Schröter 1997, 329ff). Contrast Plisch (p. 48).