“... It is argued here that the accumulation of instances of Thomas’s inclusion of Lukan redactional features also tells against independence and speaks instead in favour of the influence of Luke upon Thomas. [...] Although the amount of text here is small, it is clear that Thomas agrees exactly with Luke, but not with Mark (see Table 8.1). As such, many have seen this as a near-certain example of influence. We need, however, to recognise the lack of certainty available here. This may look to some like a smoking-gun proof, but the fragmentary nature of the Greek of GTh 5 must be considered: there may be other options for the reconstruction. One reason why the argument for secondariness looks so plausible above is that Thomas has been restored not only on the basis of the Coptic, but also (almost certainly) on the basis of Luke 8.17. It remains possible, too, that DeConick’s theory of different versions arising through oral performance also explains the text-form in Thomas here. The closeness of Luke and Thomas should not merely be waved away, however. In particular, if the number of parallels to Lukan redaction in other sayings begins to mount up, then the theory of shared Lukan variations emerging in oral performances will look more shaky. ...”