Friday, May 18, 2007

Nicholas Perrin, Thomas: The Other Gospel

My copy of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas, the Other Gospel (London: SPCK, 2007) arrived today and I am looking forward to reading it. Although Nick is based in the US, at Wheaton College, the book has been released in the UK ahead of its US release. It's already been noted by Michael Bird on Euangelion. I am going to try to read it this weekend and I hope to comment.

Update (Saturday, 16.52): April deConick registers a major protest about Nick Perrin's misrepresentation of her position on the Forbidden Gospels blog. I've not yet got to that part of the book yet, but hope to post my thoughts about the book in general in due course.

4 comments:

Christopher Shell said...

NP's book should be commended. Though pretty easy to read, it is partly based on his Tatian/Thomas research, so can be appropriately dense. He engages Patterson, Pagels and De Conick pretty effectively; makes the case for an original Syriac Thomas as well as it can be made; makes several important (if not new) source-critical points. It was already very hard to see Thomas in a 1st century context, and this book makes it harder.

Jim Deardorff said...

Do you know if anyone has looked into the detested "other" gospel of 2 Cor 11:4 as consisting of a document connected to Paul's fall-out with Peter, and with Peter being shunned in Acts after Acts 15? In this case the detested gospel would be the document that Peter & John Mark had taken with them to Rome, where Peter did not urge it forward. And their (undesired by Paul) presence in Rome ahead of Paul's seems implied by Rom 15:22.

The Gospel of Thomas just won't do, for those of us who see it as based to a large extent upon the canonical gospels.

Jim Deardorff
deardorj@proaxis.com

Eric Rowe said...

Dr. De Connick has a troubling post on her blog about Dr. Perrin misrepresenting her. It's worth reading. She may be filling in the details in the days to come too.

Tony Bellows said...

I don;t think the "other gospel" or Paul particular refers to a written work; that would seem to be an assumption that is being read back into the text.