{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023214285714285715, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.233333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas

Recent analyses of the Gospel of Thomas by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole make only a partial and, in several instances, unconvincing case for Thomas’s knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels. Other neglected data suggests that some portions of Thomas are substantially autonomous. This calls for a more complex understanding of the composition of Thomas, one that recognizes its construction as a ‘school text’ or ‘anthology’, drawing on multiple and parallel streams of the Jesus tradition.