Preliminaries, and a new diagram

I have little time this week, unfortunately, to devote the attention I need to the question of the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics (though I have already drafted some comments), but I did have time to put together a new HSH diagram.  Here it is:

On Thomas and the Gospels

The session on Thomas Among the Gospels at the 2012 SBL Annual Meeting was lively and informative, or at least I found it so.  It has also spurred new thinking on my part about one corner of the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis, so it was even more productive than I expected.

Some Hurried Words on SBL

Haven't had much time to blog amidst travel and socializing all week, so these notes I've jotted down are the best I can provide.

Brief Post on the Forthcoming Secret Mark Book

Travel and socializing has taken up most of my time this week, but I hope to have some more about SBL Chicago soon, especially on the Gospel of Thomas session (which merits a post of its own).  In the meantime, I would be remiss if I did not mention the forthcoming volume on the York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium of last year, Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery? with Tony Burke as editor:

http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2012/11/16/secret-gospel-of-mark-in-debate/

Please do buy it when it comes out!  It will be a very informative volume.

Gathercole on GTh

I opened Gathercole's The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas expecting a formidable challenge to the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis. Instead, I discovered that Gathercole's thesis and the HSH hardly speak to each other at all.  And where they do, they actually agree.

Synoptic Solutions at SBL

I will be attending the SBL Annual Meeting in Chicago this weekend. It's my first SBL conference and I'm a little excited :)

On the Burden (or Onus) of Proof

ETA: see below.

Some interesting thoughts on the so-called "onus [or burden] of proof" are out on the web right now, and I wanted to make a few comments, if I may:

I agree the "burden of proof" concept is maybe overstated in humanistic disciplines like religious studies.  I'd also agree that in areas without a consensus position, the burden is indeed simply on the person trying to make one case or another.  Having said that, I think there are meaningful ways in which a "burden of proof" can be employed.

Euangelion Kata Markon on Secret Mark

Michael Kok has devoted a series at his blog to Secret Mark. I'm quite interested to see what will result.

The HSH in the Context of Johannine Studies

I thought I'd finally put this post up--I wrote it last fall as part of my ongoing exploration of the role that the Signs Gospel plays in the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis, but got busy with other things and it's been sitting for a while.  But I'd like to explain how the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis relates to the study of the Gospel of John, so I've revised this post and here it is.  


The HSH, at least with regards to the role of the Signs Gospel, does fit into a previously-established tradition of Johannine scholarship, though this tradition is perhaps not a mainstream one.  The Signs hypothesis in general (that is, that there was a source for the Gospel of John that contained a sequence of symbolic miracles called "signs") is not universally accepted, and indeed one might argue that it has never been mainstream opinion.  I wanted to explain that I am aware of this, but that there is nevertheless an ongoing thread in Johannine studies that does assume the existence of a Signs document (of some sort or other), even one that relates to the Gospels of Mark and John in the way that I claim it does.


I'll present this as a more-or-less chronological study of the concept of a Signs source in the history of New Testament criticism.

A Brief History of Scholarship on the Relation of GJohn to the Synoptics

Is This Part of the Infamous 1st Century Papyrus of GMk?

This was posted today on someone's Facebook profile (?!).

So far all I can say of it is that it looks a bit odd in several ways.

I'm not really one to make much of these things; just thought it was of interest.

No doubt Brill will have done their due diligence when they eventually publish the official report.