“... Gospel of Thomas logion 57 does not shed light on the relationship between the parable of the Weeds and Wheat and its interpretation. Several commentators have compellingly argued that logion 57 is nothing more than an abbreviation of the Matthean parable and its interpretation [...] instead of a separate (or related) tradition. [...] According to John Meier, the internal inconsistencies within the Thomassine version of the parable point to the fact that the author of Gos. Thom. awkwardly combined details from Matthew’s parable (or Matthew’s unique material sometimes called “M”) and Matthew’s interpretation. [...] In fact, it is impossible to account for these inconsistencies in Gos. Thom. without appealing to the Matthean parable and its interpretation. For example, there is no antecedent to the third person plural pronoun referring to those who receive the master’s command in logion 57 (“The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them”). Some have called the omission of the growth of the weeds and the wheat and the identity of “them” as examples of ‘missing middles’ in Gos. Thom., which is an indication of literary dependence. [...] If logion 57 is simply an abbreviation of Matthew (which seems to be the case), nothing can be gleaned from it that can help us shed light on the relationship between the Matthean parable of the Weeds and Wheat and its interpretation. [...] Regarding the inconsistencies Meier writes, “More strikingly, Thomas lacks the narrative core of the parable, that is, the whole succession of events that makes the denouement intelligible: the growth of the plants bearing grain, the simultaneous appearance of the weeds, the servants approaching the householder with a question about the origin of the weeds in a field sown with good seed, the householder’s declaration that this is the work of an enemy, and the servants’ suggestion that they gather up the weeds (Matt 13:26-28).” ...”