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

RE: [GTh] Gospel of Thomas and the Farrer Theory

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    Not off the top of my head, Mark. Mind you, there’s not a huge amount written on Thomas and sources – even the Q stuff isn’t exactly extensive. Have you
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Not off the top of my head, Mark. Mind you, there’s not a huge amount written on Thomas and sources – even the Q stuff isn’t exactly extensive. Have you looked at Reinhardt Nordsiek’s commentary, or Uwe-Karsten Plisch’s, though? There is a vague glimmer in the back of my mind that says that I might have read something in one of these, but I have been up waaaaay too long today to be able to skim read effectively even in English and Nordsiek’s German is definitely beyond me tonight. J

       

      Judy

       

      --

      Judy Redman
      PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
      University of New England
      Armidale 2351 Australia
      ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
      mob: 0437 044 579
      web: 
       http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
      email: 
       jredman2@...
       

       

      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Goodacre
      Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2011 6:25 AM
      To: gthomas
      Cc: Synoptic-L
      Subject: [GTh] Gospel of Thomas and the Farrer Theory

       

       

      As some of you may know, I am currently working on a book on the
      relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics. It
      occurs to me that I am not aware of a single piece of scholarship on
      the Gospel of Thomas that engages with the Farrer Theory. The only
      piece I am aware of that even mentions it is Stephen Patterson, “The
      Gospel of (Judas) Thomas and the Synoptic Problem” in P. Foster, A.
      Gregory, J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden (eds.), New Studies in the
      Synoptic Problem (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 783-808.
      Patterson gives the theory a footnote (p. 790, n. 34), which I think
      may be a sign of future hope. Is anyone aware of anything else?

      Thanks
      Mark

      Cross-posting to the Gospel of Thomas list and Synoptic-L.

      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org

    • Mark Goodacre
      Many thanks, Judy and Doug, for helpful suggestions. Good catch on Zeba Crook. Plisch appears to be ignorant of the Farrer Theory, as far as I can tell. I
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Many thanks, Judy and Doug, for helpful suggestions. Good catch on
        Zeba Crook. Plisch appears to be ignorant of the Farrer Theory, as
        far as I can tell. I doubt that Nordsieck engages with it, but I look
        forward to double-checking next week. Cheers, Mark


        --
        Mark Goodacre
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://www.markgoodacre.org
      • Doug Milford
        I see I sent this straight to Mark. So here it is for the list ... __________________________ Mark, While peripheral and buried in footnotes, Zeba Antonin
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I see I sent this straight to Mark. So here it is for the list ...
          __________________________

          Mark,

          While peripheral and buried in footnotes, Zeba Antonin Crook engages Farrer somewhat iin "The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Goulder Hypotheses," JSNT 78, 2000, 23-48.

          ... Goulder sees a parallelism between the two parables which indicates that Matthew created the parable of the Leaven rather than simply having selected it from Q. Hence, where we saw earlier the notion that the order of the two parables is unnecessary, as indicated by the Gospel of Thomas and Mark, Goulder sees a very deliberate pattern uniting them (p. 43).

          Crook goes on to note (f 82) that "this might well suggest that Mark thought so, but that the Gospel of Thomas has them separated suggests that the order is not necessary even if it is possible."

          Doug Milford


          On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
          Many thanks, Judy and Doug, for helpful suggestions. Good catch on
          Zeba Crook.  Plisch appears to be ignorant of the Farrer Theory, as
          far as I can tell.  I doubt that Nordsieck engages with it, but I look
          forward to double-checking next week.  Cheers, Mark

        • Judy Redman
          Mark, I didn’t get the post from Phil and it doesn’t seem to have made it into my junk folder, which legitimate posts to lists sometimes do. Did he reply
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment

            Mark,

             

            I didn’t get the post from Phil and it doesn’t seem to have made it into my junk folder, which legitimate posts to lists sometimes do. Did he reply to you direct?  If so, Phil would you mind resharing, please?

             

            Judy

             

            --

            Judy Redman
            PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
            University of New England
            Armidale 2351 Australia
            ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
            mob: 0437 044 579
            web: 
             http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
            email: 
             jredman2@...
             

             

            From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Goodacre
            Sent: Friday, 3 June 2011 12:41 AM
            To: gthomas
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Gospel of Thomas and the Farrer Theory

             

             

            Many thanks, Judy and Doug, for helpful suggestions. Good catch on
            Zeba Crook. Plisch appears to be ignorant of the Farrer Theory, as
            far as I can tell. I doubt that Nordsieck engages with it, but I look
            forward to double-checking next week. Cheers, Mark

            --
            Mark Goodacre
            Duke University
            Department of Religion
            Gray Building / Box 90964
            Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
            Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

            http://www.markgoodacre.org

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.