“... The return of the beaten slave poses a problem for Thomas, who seems at pains to create a more plausible story. Luke had already coped with the problem of plausibility by having an inner monologue in which the owner weighs possibilities after the second sending (Luke 20:13: “Perhaps . . .”). As part of the attempt to increase plausibility, Thomas not only takes over this inner monologue of deliberation but anticipates it here—he will still use it again after the second sending—to justify the sending of a second slave after the first has been beaten. [...] In any event, what is clear is that Thomas takes Luke’s deliberating soliloquy (“perhaps”) and moves it forward, apparently in an attempt to make the owner’s action more plausible. Placed after the first sending, the deliberation makes the second sending slightly more intelligible—if no less fruitless. The two separate deliberations introduced by “perhaps” also provide an added structural element to this schematic story. [...] Like Luke (contrary to Mark and Matthew), Thomas makes the master’s deliberative soliloquy a main clause. Into the “lord of the vineyard’s” deliberation Luke pointedly inserts an adverb encountered nowhere else in the NT: “Perhaps [isōs] they will respect him [i.e., my son].” Thomas parallels this with his own adverb mešak (“Perhaps they will respect him, my son”). Interestingly, mešak occurs nowhere in CGT except in logion 65, in the two Lucan-like deliberations of the owner. [...] While traces of both Matthew and Mark can be detected, it is Luke’s redactional changes that are most clearly mirrored in Thomas. They include (1) Luke 20:9: the abrupt beginning of the story without the clear allusion to Isa 5:2; (2) Luke 20:10: the phrase “in order that they might give to him [some of] the fruit of the vineyard”; (3) the omission of the killing of any slave (in keeping with the sending of only one slave each time); (4) the inclusion of “perhaps” (Luke’s isōs, Thomas’ mešak) in the owner’s soliloquy, expressing hope that the farmers will respect his son. This point is especially telling since isōs never appears anywhere else in the NT, just as Thomas never uses mešak outside of logion 65. Luke pointedly inserts the adverb to make the owner’s decision slightly more plausible. Thomas follows Luke in both wording and intention. ...”