This is an old fellow talking here, been studying for years my background is medicine, you are an up and coming star. Also I'm a massive fan of Mark Goodacre he is an absolute gem.
Dr Goodacre stands head and shoulders above almost all guests on this channel. The more I see of him, the better. But David Oliver Smith or Tom Dykstra speaking on Mark's adaptation of material from epistles would be a good complement.
Almost as if Josh reads my mind! For the longest time, I've been wishing to either have free time to read, or have an opportunity to hear more about Goodacre's arguments for familiarity with the synoptics-from the same methodology based on which he rejects the existence of Q
Ya, that's why I don't usually waste my time with them. Here's a link to the HV Discord server, I think you'll find it to your likening. discord.gg/pHYQZebhN5
It seems plausible to me that Thomas was written after the Synoptics and before John. I don’t think the dating is as strained as Goodacre makes it out to be.
Feels like half the "oral tradition" claims are intended to avoid saying that someone sat down one day and invented a bunch of stuff. I don't want to overstate this, but sayings, parables--we have ancient Greek philosophers using them and we don't say they're oral traditions.
Nothing is wrong with thinking that invention is less likely than not. In fact, there are many critical historical Jesus scholars that remain firm that the historical Jesus spoke all the parables attributed to him, even in 2024
@@theespjames4114 the overwhelming majority of Jews were familiar with the stories in Hebrew texts, and therefore, a Jew like Jesus would certainly make fictional parables based on elements in hebrew texts! It's just the same way high-class British people are familiar with Greek classical works & stories-and cannot speak for more than a few hours without mentioning something dependent on Homer or Classics
@@theespjames4114 Of course. I'm not saying oral tradition did not exist. I'm saying we have texts comparable in zeitgeist (culture and age), in goal (presenting practical philosophy) and in form (sayings, parables) to the gospels and we ascribe to oral tradition in the gospels that which we wouldn't in them.
@@theespjames4114 what makes you think an Aramaic speaker like Jesus would not be familiar with oral stories & details that were derived written Hebrew? Why would someone believe himself to be a Messiah & create an entire quasi-political national religious movement without learning the scriptures through some way?? You are also wrong in claiming that Palaeo Hebrew was designed to hide anything. North-West Semitic languages were all written without vowels at the time. The hebrew scriptures hid nothing more than any other North West Semitic writings hide anything
@@theespjames4114 what precisely is your point in relation to the historicity of parables & Jesus' acquaintance with traditions in the old testament? Are you saying that there are elements in the parables that cannot possibly come from Jesus because you imagine that Jesus cannot possibly have learnt hebrew scriptures? Or that there is a specific feature in any particular parable that could not possibly have been dependent on a translation of the hebrew text of another language? Simply because the scriptures were first written in earlier forms of Hebrew that were different from the widely spoken hebrew of the time of Ptolemy & Jerome doesn't make Hebrew unique in comparison to other languages - Quranic Arabic is definitely different from any Arabic spoken in conventional conversations of the modern middle east. The evolution of vowel pointing in Hebrew presumably occurred in parallel with other North West semitic languages (maybe one or two North West semitic languages evolved vowel pointing only slightly earlier). I think you are committing some subtle fallacies. When you say "without prior knowledge" (which is normal with any religious text, in any language, written too long in the past preceding the contemporary state of evolution of the spoken language), how does that rule out Jesus going into either meticulous learning of the traditions contained in the text from people with better literacy skills?
Its so bizarre to me that you express openness but only seem to consider that the biblical Gospels are the original and the others take from them. Maybe these other newly found scriptures are the original and the biblical Gospels are taken from them. Im not saying either way but certainly consider both and lean towards the Gospel of Thomas being the original.
This isn't the first time that Dr. Goodacre has expounded his somewhat closed-minded and at times heavy-handed views about the Gospel of Thomas (mirroring his equally closed-minded view on "Q"). I think he gets it completely wrong. I much prefer the open-minded and highly scholarly views of his predecessor, Dr. Helmut Koester, and also of Koester's student, Dr. Elaine Pagels. Psychologically speaking, my clinical impression is that Mark Goodacre may an "anal retentive" personality. This would help to explain his objections to "messy" texts, such as Q and Thomas, both of whom he objects to in the most anally retentive ways (i.e., with utter revulsion). My clinical impression isn't simply based on the content of Goodacre's remarks regarding "Q" and the gospel of Thomas. It's also based on the fact that his voice is and has always struck me as being a bit on the "retentive" side of the ledger. That is to say, a bit on the "prissy" side.
An academic cannot be passionate about his academic theory without being called profanities disguised as psycho-analysis (pardon my harshness, but even without a doctorate in psychology, I'm a medical doctor, hence my familiarity with psychology)?
Lol. Goodacre presents a TEXT-BASED case about Thomas being dependent on the canonical Gospels. If you are capable of making a counter-argument, let's hear it. Nobody cares about this faux-clinical psychobabble you are posting.
@@notanemoprog The esteemed Thomas scholars Helmut Koester & Elaine Pagels view Thomas as being a very early 1st c. document. Thus, it (or the vast majority of it) predates the four gospels. Any textual similarities may indicate that some of the gospels have drawn material from Thomas, or from a common text tradition that overlapped with parts of Thomas.
➡📚Get his book! [amzn.to/3Lc8Szt]
Have you personally contacted Fr Goodacre regarding professor Audlin's theory? I think they can both be simultaneously correct
This is an old fellow talking here, been studying for years my background is medicine, you are an up and coming star. Also I'm a massive fan of Mark Goodacre he is an absolute gem.
Same here-only I'm below 30!
Goodacre is an excellent guest.
Please invite him back.
Dr Goodacre stands head and shoulders above almost all guests on this channel. The more I see of him, the better. But David Oliver Smith or Tom Dykstra speaking on Mark's adaptation of material from epistles would be a good complement.
He's a pleasure to listen to. Sort of like having a really nice friend who's an expert and you can just listen while sharing a beer.
@@ian_bno alcohol
brilliant I thought I was in for a long video. then I was disappointed when it ended. thanks to you both. more please 🙏😉
I love his channel. Interestingly enough, I was listening to his channel last night.
Thanks
Great questions, Jacob! Well-prepared interview (as always)
Almost as if Josh reads my mind! For the longest time, I've been wishing to either have free time to read, or have an opportunity to hear more about Goodacre's arguments for familiarity with the synoptics-from the same methodology based on which he rejects the existence of Q
I will buy really soon .....keep giving us great information thank you.
great interview, Jacob - i love what a reliably excellent source of scholarly opinion this channel is
good interview thanks
Reading the Gospel of Thomas is a Johannine lens is kinda wild.
The missing middle makes Thomas sound like a study guide for proselytizers. It sounds like cue cards.
Elaine Pagels makes a case that Gospel of John knows Gospel of Thomas and is explicitly countering it
Right as I typed that Mark addressed it, oops.
Is this is in "The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John." or "Beyond belief : the secret Gospel of Thomas"?
@@oker59 I read it in Beyond Belief
@@FacePaster makes sense - thanks for the response.
The Mythicists in the comments are really starting to get under my skin. They're just an atheist version of an Evangelical apologist.
Ya, that's why I don't usually waste my time with them. Here's a link to the HV Discord server, I think you'll find it to your likening. discord.gg/pHYQZebhN5
Ha Ha Ha, so I'm some kind of Atheist Heretic now, how amusing.
@@History-Valleywhat is Discord & what is it for?
many of them are former evangelicals -- and they have replaced an old addiction with a new one
@@seoigh Exactly. It's not about actual history for them. I want to know what really happened in classical antiquity.
Please call Dr. April D Deconick.
What is he known for?
@@tsemayekekema2918 She. Lots.
@@tsemayekekema2918 she's a NT prof at Rice U. Specializes in gThomas and gnosticism, and known for having divergent opinions.
@@tsemayekekema2918 Her ideas are mind blowing
@@komaichan99 examples please. I tend to be selective of videos due to time constraints
It seems plausible to me that Thomas was written after the Synoptics and before John. I don’t think the dating is as strained as Goodacre makes it out to be.
I don't see what Thomas is not Q + time + interpolation from a neoplatonic/gnostic source. It isn't Q, but it's another puzzle piece pointing to it.
Yeah, quite possibly.
GoSpel your SOUTH=Viet, Handle, Left, naM, Dixie 🙃 Land aGaiN👈 Newe= Jung Carl gustavvatsup 🦊 phatSStaff Jo Seth EmmeTTim33 🦴bir=Plain, Water, Spring, We77🌘MaarS Kila Wahl 🐳 EnGlish= NASA babelledad gentileSSelitmap RemembeR🪞RedMeMer 🍕 azziq 🥖 HpAoL 🍀 TrannS 🪜 LateR Braut=Bride🪱👈staG, deR, Hart, Savory Meat, Venison, VenuS👈 heRmaN🪱yaM🍠 Sha 🗝️ 🍐 Wi77iam 🕎oLiveR Cromwell Sei Veldt Ace Ewe Decle 🐍 Servants for🪞rapH ShAroN 🚪roD 🍢 iSout🙃fnaZi GoBernMint tiP iS NairlaSaiF👈 Bi=✌️Ble=♋
Could James the Just have written Thomas?
This is kind of an old video right? Mark Goodacre hasn't uploaded anything or posted on his blog since September 2023
I think this is fairly recent, according to Mark's hairline🤷♂️
@@sorenaleksander2670 Well that depends on your idea of "recent", but judging by the papyrus discussed it was end of September 2023
Feels like half the "oral tradition" claims are intended to avoid saying that someone sat down one day and invented a bunch of stuff. I don't want to overstate this, but sayings, parables--we have ancient Greek philosophers using them and we don't say they're oral traditions.
Nothing is wrong with thinking that invention is less likely than not. In fact, there are many critical historical Jesus scholars that remain firm that the historical Jesus spoke all the parables attributed to him, even in 2024
@@theespjames4114 the overwhelming majority of Jews were familiar with the stories in Hebrew texts, and therefore, a Jew like Jesus would certainly make fictional parables based on elements in hebrew texts! It's just the same way high-class British people are familiar with Greek classical works & stories-and cannot speak for more than a few hours without mentioning something dependent on Homer or Classics
@@theespjames4114 Of course. I'm not saying oral tradition did not exist. I'm saying we have texts comparable in zeitgeist (culture and age), in goal (presenting practical philosophy) and in form (sayings, parables) to the gospels and we ascribe to oral tradition in the gospels that which we wouldn't in them.
@@theespjames4114 what makes you think an Aramaic speaker like Jesus would not be familiar with oral stories & details that were derived written Hebrew? Why would someone believe himself to be a Messiah & create an entire quasi-political national religious movement without learning the scriptures through some way?? You are also wrong in claiming that Palaeo Hebrew was designed to hide anything. North-West Semitic languages were all written without vowels at the time. The hebrew scriptures hid nothing more than any other North West Semitic writings hide anything
@@theespjames4114 what precisely is your point in relation to the historicity of parables & Jesus' acquaintance with traditions in the old testament? Are you saying that there are elements in the parables that cannot possibly come from Jesus because you imagine that Jesus cannot possibly have learnt hebrew scriptures? Or that there is a specific feature in any particular parable that could not possibly have been dependent on a translation of the hebrew text of another language? Simply because the scriptures were first written in earlier forms of Hebrew that were different from the widely spoken hebrew of the time of Ptolemy & Jerome doesn't make Hebrew unique in comparison to other languages - Quranic Arabic is definitely different from any Arabic spoken in conventional conversations of the modern middle east. The evolution of vowel pointing in Hebrew presumably occurred in parallel with other North West semitic languages (maybe one or two North West semitic languages evolved vowel pointing only slightly earlier). I think you are committing some subtle fallacies. When you say "without prior knowledge" (which is normal with any religious text, in any language, written too long in the past preceding the contemporary state of evolution of the spoken language), how does that rule out Jesus going into either meticulous learning of the traditions contained in the text from people with better literacy skills?
you asked if he created it when it says it’s Jesus’s words in the beginning of the gospel.
Jacob Berman's channel is one of the greatest on RUclips, but Jesus never existed.
Well, you're literally half-right
@@notanemoprog so youre saying JB is not one of the greatest? pretty saucy.
Touché
Its so bizarre to me that you express openness but only seem to consider that the biblical Gospels are the original and the others take from them. Maybe these other newly found scriptures are the original and the biblical Gospels are taken from them. Im not saying either way but certainly consider both and lean towards the Gospel of Thomas being the original.
They literally did that.
This isn't the first time that Dr. Goodacre has expounded his somewhat closed-minded and at times heavy-handed views about the Gospel of Thomas (mirroring his equally closed-minded view on "Q"). I think he gets it completely wrong.
I much prefer the open-minded and highly scholarly views of his predecessor, Dr. Helmut Koester, and also of Koester's student, Dr. Elaine Pagels.
Psychologically speaking, my clinical impression is that Mark Goodacre may an "anal retentive" personality. This would help to explain his objections to "messy" texts, such as Q and Thomas, both of whom he objects to in the most anally retentive ways (i.e., with utter revulsion).
My clinical impression isn't simply based on the content of Goodacre's remarks regarding "Q" and the gospel of Thomas. It's also based on the fact that his voice is and has always struck me as being a bit on the "retentive" side of the ledger. That is to say, a bit on the "prissy" side.
An academic cannot be passionate about his academic theory without being called profanities disguised as psycho-analysis (pardon my harshness, but even without a doctorate in psychology, I'm a medical doctor, hence my familiarity with psychology)?
Lol. Goodacre presents a TEXT-BASED case about Thomas being dependent on the canonical Gospels. If you are capable of making a counter-argument, let's hear it. Nobody cares about this faux-clinical psychobabble you are posting.
@@tsemayekekema2918 I suspect that 66 from the handle is Robin Stevenson's age, and 90 is his/her IQ
Could you possibly be even more of a weirdo?
@@notanemoprog The esteemed Thomas scholars Helmut Koester & Elaine Pagels view Thomas as being a very early 1st c. document.
Thus, it (or the vast majority of it) predates the four gospels. Any textual similarities may indicate that some of the gospels have drawn material from Thomas, or from a common text tradition that overlapped with parts of Thomas.