Have you read that recent book out "The Complete Gospels" where it
shows canonical and extracanonical works 'side by side.'?
I've often thought we might toss out Quelle sources too if we had
something better to go to. But aren't we limited in the languages we
use to classify? That is many of the distinctions we might see in the
Coptic verbiage gets lost in "English word lists"? Take for example
in the back of Thayer's Greek/English Dictionary he has "Hebrew words
peculiar to Mark" or "Hebrew words peculiar to Luke."
Who has done this with the Coptic sources in Thomas? That's why I was
wondering if the other scholar would come up with a pdf on the Gospel
of Thomas, Proto-Gospel of Thomas and Pre-Gospel of Thomas. It is so
easy to make "comparisions ad infinitum" in English and "lose the
So, toss out Pesher since it is all about "reading between the lines"
and toss out Quelle since how can we know about a Quelle source that
is only shared but does not stand alone. And maybe we should
just "toss out" the concept of "Synoptic" -- maybe we have imposed
our own order upon a syncretism not really there?
Why don't we go to our Coptic or Greek conjugations and try to date
it by case, number and etc...
I'd be interested to know what tools we should use to study for there
is much left to learn here.
Thanks for your frank assessment of BT's work. I only know from her
emails her thoughts, I've never read her books. I have studied Mr.
James M. Rogers