Research & investigation
Mark Goodacre
Scholar of early Christianity and textual history
Who they are
Mark Goodacre examines how accounts of the Nag Hammadi discovery developed and changed in retelling. His 2013 study compares the available narratives instead of assuming a single familiar story is secure. He appears here as a historical-source analyst, helping readers distinguish the manuscript discovery from later reconstructions of how it happened.
His article supplies the source criticism behind the Nag Hammadi entry.
Selected contributions
- Compared conflicting discovery accounts and assessed which narrative details can be supported.Source ↗
Selected works
Academic paper · 2013
How Reliable is the Story of the Nag Hammadi Discovery?
Mark Goodacre compares accounts of the manuscript find and examines how later retellings developed. His discussion of Doresse’s early inquiries helps distinguish investigation after the fact from eyewitness testimony.
Reading scope & citation
Reuses the input’s documented prior inspection: The author’s paper was inspected. Its bibliography identifies the 1977 English collection and the 1988 third revised edition; those books’ complete contents were not independently inspected for this addition. No fresh full-work reread in this directory pass. Reused prior inspected evidence: Supporting passages inspected; not a cover-to-cover audit of every linked publication
In the timeline
Biography sources
- How Reliable is the Story of the Nag Hammadi Discovery? ↗Journal for the Study of the New Testament / author-hosted paper