Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New Blog Review of Goodacre's Thomas Book

Expand Messages
  • Derek
    I m reading that book, too. Given the structure of Dr. Goodacre s argument, for me chapter 10 need only be plausible rather than convincing. It s hard evidence
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm reading that book, too. Given the structure of Dr. Goodacre's argument, for me chapter 10 need only be plausible rather than convincing. It's hard evidence I'm interested in, and his pièce de résistance is chapter 6, the parallel between Thomas 79 and Luke 11:27-28. Koilia and mastoi do indeed seem Lukan to us, but only on the basis of Luke 11:27 and Luke 23:29. Most importantly, what are the implications of comparing Luke 23:29 with Matthew 24:19? Isn't it possible that these represent the same tradition, with Matthew being the one to refine the gynecological vocabulary? Luke 11:27-28 might be then a Matthean excision from Q.

      Derek Cameron.

      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
      >
      > The biblioblog "Verily Verily" has got a long, thoughtful, and well-
      > informed review of Mark Goodacre's Thomas book today:
      >
      > http://thinkinginpublic.blogspot.com/2012/12/goodacre-synoptics-and-gospel-of-thomas.html
      >
      > Turns out that author (who apparently goes just by the first name 'Rafael')
      > agrees with Ian Brown's disappointment with chapter 10, though for
      > somewhat different reasons. Rafael would have had Mark say something
      > about why certain synoptic parallels were used in Thomas and not others.
      > This is a question that also interests me also, though I'm not sure what
      > Mark could have said about it, except that the chosen parallels somehow
      > fit with other stuff in the Thomas text.
      >
      > Mike Grondin
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.