Sources:
Asgeirsson, J-M., Doublets and Strata: Towards a Rhetorical Approach to the Gospel
.................... of Thomas, Claremont Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, p.161
DeConick, A., Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas, 2005, p.38
Plisch, U-K,, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary, 2008, p.23
Schenke, H-M., "On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas", Paper presented
................ at the Fall Meeting of Westar Institute's Jesus Seminar, Edmonton, Canada, 1991
................ (citation and Schenke list from Asgeirsson's dissertation)
Schenke | Asgeirsson | DeConick | Plisch | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1991 | 1998 | 2005 | 2008 | ||
55 & 101 | 4 | yes | yes | yes | yes |
56 & 80 (+111.3) | 4 | yes | yes | yes | yes |
87 & 112 | 3 | yes | yes | yes | |
48 & 106 | 2.5 | yes* | yes | yes | |
3.1-3 & 113 | 2 | yes | yes | ||
5.2 & 6.5-6*** | 2 | yes | yes | ||
21.5-7 & 103 | 2 | yes | yes | ||
22.4-7 & 106.1 | 1.5 | yes* | yes | ||
(6.1+14) & 104 | 1.5 | yes** | yes | ||
38 & 92 | 1 | yes | |||
92.1 & 94.1 | 1 | yes |
Other Suggestions
3.4 & 111.3 (Ian Brown)
8.1-3 & 107 (Ian Brown)
11.1-2 & 111.1-2 (myself, Patterson)
39.1-2 & 102 (myself, Gathercole)
41& 70 (myself)
81& 110 (myself)
In my judgement, the pair 87 and 112 is every bit as good as the top two. I see no reason for Plisch to have left it out. With respect to 106, the situation is more complex. Schenke actually split 106, matching 106.1 to 22.4-7 and 106.2 to 48. One other source did the same, but the other four matched all or part of 106 to 48. Asgeirsson's reason for preferring a match not listed by any of his six sources (i.e., the whole of 106 to 22.4-7) was that "it seems questionable to identify a doublet on the basis of a proverbial phrase alone" (i.e., 106.2 and 48.2). To my mind, however, it's simply not the case that the pairing of 106 and 48 is based on 106.2 and 48.2 alone. The obvious similarity of form between 106 and 48 (not present in the other suggested pairing), as well as the fact that two making peace with each other is pretty similar to making two one, must, I think, be taken into the balance against an ignoring of 106.2 because it's a "proverbial phrase".
Some Thomas commentaries, such as those of Patterson and Gathercole, contain discussions of doublets in general, but don't indicate in any one place which pairs the author considers doublets. When one digs into the details and footnotes, however, one can get at least some idea of that. Sometimes this yields surprises. A digital search of Gathercole's commentary, for example, shows that of the four pairings with respect to which he uses the word 'doublet', two aren't at all common: 39.1-2 & 102 (which I hadn't seen on any list except my own), and 22.2 & 46.2, which I hadn't seen anywhere else. -M.Grondin, 2/2/17