Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 14:10:17 CST
From: "Maureen Smith" <msmith@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>
Subject: the Gospel of Thomas

Tom Kopecek says:

>I still maintain that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, for instance, 
>is at first blush a document of the patristic era and only by 
"reconstruction" relevant to the pre-Easter Jesus. And I've got even
>stronger feelings about one of Crossan's favorites, the Gospel of Peter.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at first blush," Tom, but I think
you're saying--and I think you've said before--that you don't buy
an early date for Thomas.

I don't have a clue whether you're right or the early-date folks
are right, but could I propose a little debate on the subject between
you and, say, Steve Davies?   It seems pretty important.  Others
with expertise are of course invited to join.

I think Steve agrees with you about the Gospel of Peter.  I don't
know if we have any proponents of Peter on the list.

The only thought I would have about Thomas is that it was found
with Gnostic material and so, even if it (or some of it) is early,
it may well have some Gnostic redaction.  Does that make sense?

All I've heard so far about Thomas has been assertion on both
sides.  How about a little evidence?

*******************
Maureen Smith