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

New URL for GThos Site

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    As of 8/9/10, the new URL for my Thomas site is http://www.gospel-thomas.net Traffic to the old Geocities URL should automatically be re-routed. Everything
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      As of 8/9/10, the new URL for my Thomas site is
      http://www.gospel-thomas.net

      Traffic to the old Geocities URL should automatically
      be re-routed. Everything looks ok this time.

      M.Grondin
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Mike, Thanks for the update; I have made the correction on my NT Links page: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/reference/links/nt.html If anyone has further corrections
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike,

        Thanks for the update; I have made the correction on my NT Links page:

        http://www.umass.edu/wsp/reference/links/nt.html

        If anyone has further corrections for those entries, I will be glad to have
        them.

        On your page, I was interested to click on the DeConick entry, which turns
        out to have been written several years back. Has informed opinion on her
        proposals for gThos now settled down? If so, I for one could use a current
        summary.

        The questions which her work raises, for me, are probably the right ones for
        any text: Is Thomas simple or composite? Does it have a structure? Does it
        have interpolations or extensions? About her answers I am a little less
        certain.

        DeConick finds that the text is simple, with a five-part structure, and with
        later interpolations here and there over its whole extent. Her five-part
        structure is sometimes agreed with, sometimes recast as four (with the
        breaks not necessarily in the same places), and sometimes denied in favor of
        an undivided text. She sees rather many interpolations over the extent of
        gThos, others see none except for late framing elements, still others, none
        at all. I am currently pursuing evidence that seems to suggest a core and
        extension model, at variance with all the above, but with its own list of
        precedents in ancient texts; in that case most of the text is later
        additions on an originally compact core. The question is not which model is
        more common, or which one someone happens to like, but which one best fits
        the signs in the text.

        And what then ARE the signs in the text? Those who see divisions point to
        possible beginning or ending formulas. Those who see five divisions in
        Matthew point to groups of what can be called sayings material, ending in a
        stereotyped phrase. If gThos has a five-part structure, is it influenced by
        the structure of Matthew? Or by the same kind of thinking?

        Presumably these questions have previously been considered, and perhaps
        settled, by members of this list. Having missed those discussions, I would
        appreciate a pointer to the archive.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.