Eerdmans Interviews Mark Goodacre Concerning the ‘Gospel of Thomas’

Via.

It’s an excellent book, really, on an interesting early text that probably doesn’t get the attention it should simply because it has been labelled ‘gnostic’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Give the interview a look and the book a read.

Would You Like a Copy of Mark Goodacre’s New Book, ‘Thomas and the Gospels’?

Mark sent me a copy and nearly simultaneously so did the nice people at Eerdmans.  Mark’s is signed so I’m keeping it and the Eerdmans direct isn’t so, because I don’t need two copies, I’m giving the second away.

If you’d like it you must

1- Live in the United States.
2- Have a deep and abiding interest in Synoptic studies.
3- Not be unpleasant.
4- Write a tiny paragraph in comments below and tell my why you yourself are particularly worthy.

I will then allow myself quite capriciously to choose the best response, and you’ll be the winner.

UPDATE:  And the WINNER IS-  Sytze van der Laan.  Congrats-  email me your mailing address and I’ll have it to you in days.

Just In Case You’re Fairly Blind and Can’t Look at the ‘Jesus Wife’ Fragment and Know it Isn’t Ancient…

There’s more evidence that the thing is a piece of bogus rubbish- kindly provided by the scholar who lives up to the first syllable of his surname, Mark Goodacre

Line 1 of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment copies a typo from a website interlinear of Coptic Thomas

And now a little more detail.  One of the difficulties with the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment is that it appears to be dependent, on every line, on words and phrases from our one extant Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas (See Francis Watson’s articles; see too Leo Depuydt’s forthcoming report; see also Andrew Bernhard).  The difficulties that this poses for the authenticity of the fragment are serious (see my reflections).

Serious indeed.  I sure hope that any of the folk still holding out false hope that the fragment is authentic (or meaningful) will read Mark’s entire post as well as Stevie Carlson’s remarks (always cogent, that Stevie C.)