By Mark Goodacre
against this, Mark Goodacre makes the case that, rather than being an early, self reliant resource, Thomas really attracts at the Synoptic Gospels as resource fabric -- to not offer a transparent narrative, yet to collect an enigmatic selection of mysterious, pithy sayings to unnerve and have an effect on the reader. Goodacre helps his argument with illuminating analyses and cautious comparisons of Thomas with Matthew and Luke.
Watch the trailer:
Read Online or Download Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics PDF
Similar church history books
The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine
An prior, self-described "very conservative evangelical" reviewer criticized the essays during this assortment for his or her "questionable" liberal conclusions. it really is curious how varied humans can learn an identical textual content and arrive at diverse conclusions. my very own interpreting of this anthology is that the essays try (perhaps overly a lot, in truth) to stick in the course of the line.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2: Baa-Cam
Others. as well as the masses of recent signed articles on a large choice of issues, this re-creation additionally positive factors biographies of latest non secular figures; hundreds of thousands of photos, maps and illustrations; and up-to-date bibliographical citations. The fifteenth quantity is a cumulative index to the total encyclopedia.
ACO I, 1, eight Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum
Extra resources for Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics
Example text
Owbere toJ a � b isb ea d and rest. The degree of verbatim agreement between Matthew, Luke, and Greek Thomas here is likely to have been strong, with at most minor variations57 alongside the distinctively Thomasine final twist, ilqi1TOII HH(O)q, "and rest� Advocates of Thomasine independence rarely comment on the de gree of closeness between the texts here. The issue is bypassed because of the verbatim agreement (too percent identity) between Matthew and Luke, which means, on the standard paradigm, that there is no redactional inter vention from Matthew or Luke.
1, apparently agreeing with Matt. 7:5. Oxy. 18 18. AOriA IHIOY, 10. )• with luke. T. J oq>9MI'· and thus assimilates luke to Matthew. This s i a point ofno little interest, and ought to be weighed before we infer a lucan tendency in the new logia· ("lbe Oxyrbynchus Fragment,n ExpT 8 [1897): 540-50, 568 [546)). Cf. Charles Taylor. Tire Oxyrlrynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels (Oxford: Clarendon, 1899), 6-7. Simon Gathcrcole, ·luke in the Gospel of Tlromas;' NTS 57 (2010): 114-44 (135-36), speculates that there may have been three stages in the devel· opment of the text, from the form witnessed in P" B W ( �A'') to the version witnessed in = N A C.
Shows knowledge ofa pericope that is Matthew's own creation, this greatl)' increases the like· lihood that Tlromas knows Matthew's Gospel There are n i faa good examples of Tlromas's familiarity with M material; see below, 73·80. 68. In practice, it does not work bectuse there are no parallels that occur exclusively in Mark, Luke, and Tlromas. If one were to take Matthew, Mark, and Tlromas together, for example, and look for patterns of agreement and disagreement, with a view to isolating the strands, one would find that Luke has parallels with Matthew alone, Mark alone.