From jknee@globalnet.co.uk Wed Jun  3 22:42:36 1998
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:36:47 +0100
From: Jacob Knee <jknee@globalnet.co.uk>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: RE: Thomas 24

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
> [mailto:owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com]On Behalf Of Stevan
> Davies
> Sent: 03 June 1998 22:20
> To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
> Subject: RE: Thomas 24
>
> Thanks for the report, Jacob. Allison at the end seems engaged in the
> effort to make moralistic what isn't moralistic. But the evil eye is
> an interesting notion here (utterly irrelevant, but interesting). The
> evil eye has an effect on what it sees. Wonder if the same is true
> for the eye that sees the kingdom... the more people that see it the
> more it's there.
>
> Steve
>

Yes - I thought the same - that there was an obvious 'spiritual' (possessed
if you want) interpretation that deserved thought. The only thing going for
it (Allison's ethical take)was the apparent parralelism between the good eye
and the evil eye - you could argue the evil eye is on first glance 'ethical'
(so the good eye must be too) - ie about willing bad things to happen to
people - or at least if you want to step around 'magical mumbo jumbo'. He
also says that there is other Jesus material that shows he was concerned
with ethical motivation.

I wasn't convinced - but his short essay really gathered together a whole
range of really interesting background stuff - up to his conclusion - which
is a bit weak.

Cheers,
Jacob