07_Biblica_AN_Kim_Layout 1 16/12/13 12:29 Pagina 594 594 DAVID W. KIM as buying, acting (plowing: working) and finding; 3) the buying in Thomas is routine, while the man in Matthew goes home and sells all his possessions to purchase the field which has the treasure; 4) Matthew shows the efforts of the finder, while Thomas expresses the unawareness on the part of the landlord and his son of the hidden treasure; 5) the figure of the finder in Matthew is depicted as a selfish man (“When a man found it, he hid it again”), while the Thomasine founder is a diligent man (“the one who bought it went on ploughing and [found] the treasure”) 42. In this case, the treasure parable of Thomas has a slightly greater claim to originality than Matthew’s version 43. Hedrick supports this view in that the treasure parable has a specific structure “which differs remarkably from that in Matthew” 44. Hedrick makes the further statement that the author of Matthew radically revised the original source “with his own theological presuppositions” 45. From where, then, did Logion 109 originate? Even if no certain evidence has yet been approved, it should be related to a “sophia tradition”. In this regard, Liebenberg notes that the Thomasine parable is “about finding … sophia in the mundane” 46. The sophia saying of the hidden treasure is related to passages in Proverbs where sophia is depicted as “a hidden treasure” that must be sought (2,1-5). Sophia, according to Job, is veiled from the sight of all living creatures (28,21) and only YHWH knows its (sophia’s) place and the way to find it (sophia) (28,23). Everlasting happiness is given to the one who finds sophia, because it (sophia) signifies the path to eternal life (Prov 6,35). Such a contextual connection supports the notion that Logion 109, like the rest of the unknown parables of Thomas, was originally derived from the Jewish sophia tradition. * * * 42 Here, Stroker suggests six differences, but two are not plausible. STRO- KER, “Extra canonical Parables”, 107. 43 Hedrick’s view is briefly mentioned in Korson’s paper as an opposite view. KORSON, “The Treasure Parable”, 22. 44 See C.W. HEDRICK, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas”, Forum 2 (1986) 41-56. 45 The similarity of the Matthean treasure parable with a rabbinic parable of Midrash Cant. Rabbah. 4. 21. 1 (Song of Songs), supports the irrelevant character of Thomas to Matthew: “It (the kingdom) is like a man who inherited a piece of ground used as a dunghill. Being an indolent man he went and sold it for a trifling sum. The purchaser began working and digging it up and he found a treasure there out of which he built himself a fine palace. He began going about in public followed by a retinue of servants, all out of the treasure he found in it. When the seller saw it, he was ready to choke and exclaimed, Alas what have I thrown away?” H. FREEDMAN, and M. SIMON, (trans. and eds), Midrash Rabbah: Song of Songs (London 1961) 219-220. 46 LIEBENBERG, The Language of the Kingdom, 243. HEDRICK, “Treasure Parable”, 49.