What Shall We Do? The Community Rules 405 the asceticism of Thomas based on “the presence (or absence) of ascetical themes”, found that the text declares “an advance toward spiritual perfection through the practice of ascetic virtues and repentance” (67). Richardson and Quispel, who thought of Thomas as having an unclear attribute of a fully developed second-century gnosticism, surmise Thomas to be either the Gospel manifesting “a strict encratite predilection for celibacy and the rejection of marriage” in a Syrian tradition, or the encratite Thomas “moving toward gnosticism” (68). Furthermore, Desjardins postulates that Thomas was formulated in North-East Syria (probably thinking of Edessa), because the text reveals the interests of Syriac asceticism (69). The figure of Thomas within the early Syrian asceticism is constructed in the period of the third- or fourth-century C.E., during which the early Christian movement was eventually extended into the regions inhabited by a Syriac majority (70). If Thomas is dated as late second-century C.E., then it is probable that the text was affected by the (early) second- century encratic or gnostic origins. However, since Thomas and Q are so similar as Jewish-Christian texts from the middle of the first century C.E. (45-60 C.E.), to expect any involvement from those pagan movements is extremely unrealistic. In contrast, the extensive usage of the Jewish regulations within the Jesus Logia was the crucial medium (67) Such as childlikeness, singleness, abstinence, world-renunciation, wealth- renunciation, family-renunciation, sexuality-renunciation, prohibition of pro- creation and marriage, continuous prayer, and fasting. See W.H.C. FREND, “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?”, JTS 18 (1967) 13-26. J. JACOBSEN BUCKLEY, “An Interpretation of Logion 114 in the Gospel of Thomas”, NT 27 (1985) 270-273. M.W. MEYER, “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas”, NTS 31 (1985) 554-556. (68) See C. RICHARDSON, “The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?”, The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of Georges Florousky (eds. D. NEIMAN – M. SLATKIN) (Rome 1973) 71. B. GÜRTNER, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London 1961) 12. H. KOESTER, Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development (London 1990) 75-128. O. CULLMANN, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition Contained Therein”, Int 16 (1962) 418-438. R. CAMERON, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins”, The Future of Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. B.A. PEARSON) (Minneapolis 1991) 381-392. (69) M. DESJARDINS, “Where was the Gospel of Thomas Written?”, TJT 8 (1992) 126. See also VALANTASIS, “Is the Gospel of Thomas Ascetical?”, 59-60. (70) The monastic life of Syrian and Egyptian in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. originated from the ascetic Christians of the early church. S.P. BROCK, “Greek and Syriac in Latin Antique Syria”, Literary and Power in the Ancient World (eds. A.K. BOWMAN – G. WOOLF) (Cambridge 1994) 149-160.