Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 16:56:27 +0000
From: Stevan Davies <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Original GThomas/Q Narrative

> From:          "Mark Goodacre" <Goodacms@hhs.bham.ac.uk>

> Since 90 per cent of Crosstalk messages are now about Thomas, I 
> suggest we add little sub-headings to 'Original GThomas', 'Original 
> GThomas + Led Zep.', 'Original GThomas/ Q Narrative', etc.  Or we 
> could just change the name of the list to 'Thomtalk' or 'Thomastalk' 
> and then we could have pure subject headings for each message :-)

This altogether good development may stem, in part, from the fact
that I put a direct email signup form into my website. If Andrew 
Bernhard does the same thing on his Historical Jesus website there
will be more folks interested in that signing up. In fact it would be 
a nice thing if more of y'all put such a form on your websites. I 
think Mark first suggested we advertise on our websites and I'll bet 
a lot of the new participants found their way here by these routes.
Check the Thomas website source-code if you want to know how 
to do this... there's nothing to it. 

http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
============= 
Also Mark wrote:
> I wonder if it relates too to a trend that is becoming  important in 
> synoptic criticism, that of looking at each (synoptic) Gospel in 
> its own right without historical-critical  obsession with 
> its parallels?  For example Joel Green's recent commentary on the 
> Gospel of Luke is, I think, one of the best commentaries on Luke I 
> have read -- and Green always looks at Luke without consulting 
> synoptic parallels.  So Luke's Travel Narrative is expounded in 
> narrative-critical vein without any reference to supposed sources in 
> Q and L, which, as with Thomas parallels to the synoptics,  always 
> tend to be in one's mind.

This is EXACTLY  what Valentasis does with Thomas. And it makes
me realize how constantly I don't do it but read the text in light of
the synoptics and not for itself.

Steve