A book review of _Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis_ (Wipf & Stock, 2010), which extensively catalogs the severe lack of proper attribution of other scholars’ work in the book.

This article argues that the Gospel of Thomas was written in Alexandria, not in Eastern Syria as is the current consensus. The arguments in favor of a Syrian Gospel of Thomas are not as strong as is often assumed, and a stronger case can be made for Alexandria. The Gospel of Thomas has a number of features that suggest it was a product of the…[Read more]

This article argues that the Gospel of Thomas was written in Alexandria, not in Eastern Syria as is the current consensus. The arguments in favor of a Syrian Gospel of Thomas are not as strong as is often assumed, and a stronger case can be made for Alexandria. The Gospel of Thomas has a number of features that suggest it was a product of the…[Read more]

This article argues that the Gospel of Thomas was written in Alexandria, not in Eastern Syria as is the current consensus. The arguments in favor of a Syrian Gospel of Thomas are not as strong as is often assumed, and a stronger case can be made for Alexandria. The Gospel of Thomas has a number of features that suggest it was a product of the…[Read more]

This article argues that the Gospel of Thomas was written in Alexandria, not in Eastern Syria as is the current consensus. The arguments in favor of a Syrian Gospel of Thomas are not as strong as is often assumed, and a stronger case can be made for Alexandria. The Gospel of Thomas has a number of features that suggest it was a product of the…[Read more]

Paper prepared for pre-circulation for the Tenth Enoch Seminar, June 2019 [http://enochseminar.org/10-florence-2019]

This essay examines the current state of the field in pentateuchal studies and recommends taking up large-genre questions once again and looking at canonical texts from other religious traditions, in this case ancient Sanskrit texts, for clues on how this type of literature grows.