S.Rhodes wrote:
> Good points "guys" --- and thanks. This is a topic I've needed to see,
> having been trapped in this matter in my own translation work.

Can you say a little something about your translation work?
Might make for a good discussion.

> Just want to ask: do you think the proper tech term might be
> "hypercorrection"?

I'm not sure what that means, but one doesn't want to use labels with
which those so labelled would disagree, since that only diverts attention
away from substantive matters. Now knowing that Meyer views his
translation of RWME as being based on a translational principle
(wrong though it turns out to be) rather than on compensating for gender
bias, I would no longer use 'over-compensating' as a label. I'm sure that
he would also disagree with his translation of RWME being called a
"correction" of any sort.

You know, one of the implications of proving the "Anthropos principle"
wrong is that it vindicates the translational choices both of those who
use 'man' often (e.g., Lambdin and Blatz) and those who use it more
sparingly (e.g., Layton and DeConick). In the case of those who use it
often, one can say that they are using 'man' as the Copts used RWME,
namely, sometimes in the sense of the male gender, sometimes as
generic (humankind). In the case of those who use it more sparingly,
one can say that they are compensating for gender bias by using it only
when the context makes clear that it's the male gender in question, but
not when the context makes clear that it's being used generically. Both
of these are, I think, reputable translational positions.

Mike Grondin

I have been following your post on Meyer's translations and agree for the
most part.  It seems to me that he has taken other liberities that stray
from the literal translations.  For instance, logion 66. Jesus said, "Show
me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone."  I thought
the translation is "cornerstone" not "keystone" and it has been a while
since I read Patterson and Meyers explaination as to why they used
keystone and couldn't find it again.  Do you know what their explaination
for their translation? It alters the entire meaning.
Ariadne

> Eureka! I've found two counter-examples to Meyer's principle,
> and no doubt more to come! I was looking on the Coptic CD for
> the Sahidic translation of the Greek ANHR, which, unlike ANTHROPOS,
> was used exclusively for males. The first two instances of ANHR that
> I looked at were at Lk 5:8 and 5:12. I was afraid that the translation
> would be 2OOYT, and that Meyer would be right, but in both cases,
> the Sahidic translation was RWME. So Meyer's principle is false:
> RWME doesn't always correspond to ANTHROPOS. Yay! Now I
> can rest easy tonight and write to Meyer in the morning. (:-)
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>

Ariadne wrote:
>I have been following your post on Meyer's translations and agree for the
> most part.  It seems to me that he has taken other liberities that stray
> from the literal translations.  For instance, logion 66. Jesus said, "Show
> me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone."  I thought
> the translation is "cornerstone" not "keystone" and it has been a while
> since I read Patterson and Meyers explaination as to why they used
> keystone and couldn't find it again.  Do you know what their explaination
> for their translation? It alters the entire meaning.

Well, at first glance it doesn't seem to alter the meaning that much.
A cornerstone is the foundation of a building, while a keystone is the
top stone of an arch, holding the two sides of the arch in place. Both
suggest a stone which is indispensable and must be of the right size.
A corner-stone would be laid first, however, and there seems to be no
reason why the builders would set it aside. A keystone, on the other
hand, would be chosen from among stones set aside as being the
wrong size while the arch was being built, only to be used at the end
to fit exactly into the remaining opening. That's the reasoning, anyway,
as I recall. Analogically, I suppose that a keystone would represent
Matthew's position that Christ was the completion of the Law, while
a cornerstone would seem to suggest an entirely new building
(Christianity) made out of the scraps left over from another building
(Judaism). Maybe that's what you mean by altering the entire meaning.

Mike G.

This is a report of my correspondence today with Prof.
Marvin Meyer of Chapman University. There were four
notes involved, and while I cannot quote from his messages,
because he didn't respond to my request for permission to
do so, I believe it wouldn't breach confidentiality to give the
gist of it in my own words, bearing in mind that this is my own
interpretation and he is not responsible for it. In my first note
this morning, I laid out the evidence I had gathered from the
Coptic CD last night, indicating that the Coptic RWME was used
for both of the Greek words ANTHROPOS and ANHR - the latter
of which was reserved for males. At the end of the note, I
pointedly asked him whether he could think of any reason to
suppose that this evidence wasn't decisive (as against his
"Anthropos Principle" that RWME corresponded to, or was
synonymous with, ANTHROPOS alone). His response was
short and somewhat dismissive, but in essence, he sidestepped
the question and thus implicitly admitted (one would not expect
him to say so) that the Anthropos Principle was unsound.

There were two other notes (I don't expect any more), because
he had asked me why I was so deeply concerned about this matter.
I replied that I had found it odd that some Thomas translations
didn't contain the word 'man' at all, and others hardly at all, and
was curious why this was so (given the 35 occurrences of RWME).
I further stated that I found it bothersome that the decision to
eliminate 'man' was based on an unsound justification. His response
was again short (I'm beginning to think that most of his email is like
that, maybe especially with nobodies like me), but somewhat friendlier -
even to the point of his including me with himself as among folks
who were trying to provide an accurate understanding of the texts. (!)

Well, that's about it. I expect to at least post a short essay to my
website within a few days. I'm thinking of calling it "The Anthropos
Principle: How Some Thomas Translators Went Wrong". I'm sure
neither Meyer nor Patterson will ever hear of it, since hardly anybody
reads these things anyway, but I would like to get it off my chest so
I can move on to something else.

Cheers,
Mike Grondin

Hi,
Jesus may have been restating Psalm 118 verse 22, or he could have been
referring to the building of the sacred temple, the temple of Solomon.
The temple represented a structure of concise measurement used for
initiation rites aimed at attaining consciousness of the Godhead. Ancient
masons carefully constructed the temple according to a sacred form of
mystical architecture consisting of exact measurements and cubical
proportion.  The structure was both an art and a science arising from
mystical secrets. The temple represented the structure of God.  Each stone
supporting the structure was specifically chosen, and many would naturally
be rejected and judged as not supporting its design.  "The stone which the
builders rejected" refers to the legend concerning the building of King
Solomon's temple, where the rejected stone became the cornerstone of the
temple, the Temple of God and indwelling place of His Holy Shekinah.

The stone that was rejected was a metaphor for some aspect of God that had
been rejected again and again, something perhaps within us all that has
been ignored.   Humanity itself was therefore suffering from its own
ignorance, having discarded a significant piece of understanding of the
nature of God.   Jesus comments on this ignorance when he says, “Show me
the stone the builders rejected, it is the cornerstone.”  He would not
have been referring to himself as most theologians interpret the same
passage in Matthew.

If the Shekinah, the cornerstone would be the feminine aspect of God, the
divine manifest at the foundation of life.

The keystone is the last wedge-shaped piece of an arch regarded as binding
the whole and would not have had as much significance.
Your thoughts?
Ariadne

Hi Adriadne,  (my thoughts on the subject)

I have always questioned the translation of H6438 (pinnah)
as "corner".  The context in the OT really means a high place;
perhaps the peak of a pyramid or the 4 high corner stones on a
building or tower that are likely to fall.  Builders are likely to
reject a "lithos/stone" that is "rounded" for placement at the top of
a structure.

The Septuagint translates H6438 to Greek "gonia" (G1137).   I also
understand that "gonia"  has sharp edges or points like a "penta-gon"
or an "octa-gon".  The KJV NT folks translated  "kephale gonia"
as "head of the corner" (Mar 12:10) rather than keystone.  Keystone
implies a completion which shuts and locks the door or bridge such
that it will not collapse.

I agree that there is a different meaning for "keystone" then what Ps
118:22 or the NT implies when using "gonia".

Hmmmm--- "the rejected masculine lithos" becomes the head of what was
the feminine "gonia".  #114 restated?  Actually, I do not take much
credence in Greek gender as Greek words were invented long before the
NT authors used them and Jesus did say he made all things new.  And
as I understand, the Coptics borrowed from the Greek

Roger Mott
Loveland, Co.

Roger says:
>
> Hmmmm--- "the rejected masculine lithos" becomes the head of
> what was the feminine "gonia".  #114 restated?  Actually, I
> do not take much credence in Greek gender as Greek words were
> invented long before the NT authors used them and Jesus did
> say he made all things new.  And as I understand, the Coptics
> borrowed from the Greek

It is not possible to build much of a case about what gender Greeks
considered something to be based on the gender of Greek words, unless they
are proper names.  English is the only language with which I am familiar
that bases the gender of nouns on the gender of the objects they represent.
Greek nouns that name inaninmate objects can be masculine, feminine or
neuter - that doesn't mean that Greeks thought of tables, chairs, books etc
as being male, female or genderless.

Coptics borrowed many words from Greek, mainly to express concepts that
didn't exist in Egyptian thought, but not always.  They didn't always carry
the gender of the word across from the Greek though.

Judy

--
"Politics is the work we do to keep the world safe for our spirituality" -
Judith Plaskow, Phoenix Rising, 2000

Rev Judy Redman
PhD candidate, Postgraduate member of Council & Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jredman2 and
           http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
email:  jredman2@...

[Mike,] thank you for posting this!   It's answered the questions I had  about
Meyer's translation, although my personal jury is still out on his  rationale.

I'm not an expert in Greek by any means, but have been looking into how to
translate 'anthropos' recently. 'Anthropos' when used of an  individual
always refers to a male individual, alhough it is also used to refer  to a group
of individuals of either sex. It reminds me of the Old English use of the
word 'man, originally 'human', while wapman was a  male human (weapons-man) and
wombman a female human.  In the same way,  'man' referring to an individual is
used solely to apply to a male human.

I recall that Michael Marlowe discussed the translation of anthropos ...  ah,
here it is!
(http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.html)

[J.S. Chandler]

> [Mike,] thank you for posting this! It's answered the questions I had
> about
> Meyer's translation, although my personal jury is still out on his
> rationale.

Thanks for your note, J.S. (and please sign your notes - that's the
protocol, and I don't know if the name I put on it agrees with you.)
The Marlowe piece is great. It covers the area I had intended to
cover in the second part of this note, when thinking about it last night,
and with much more expertise than I have at my disposal. Marlowe
answers the questions I would have posed, without knowing the answers.

This weekend, I came to realize that my analysis in this series of notes
was still incomplete. It occurred to me to ask two questions about
Meyer's Anthropos Principle (i.e., that RWME corresponds to, or is
synonymous with, ANTHROPOS). The first was, "Even if it's false, what's
the translational impact?" The second was, "Even if it were true, what
would the translational impact be?" Both of these questions need to
be answered in order to come to a proper judgement about Meyer's
translations (and others that appear to depend on the Anthropos Principle.)
I'll look at these two questions, and describe how I approached them.

"Even if the AP is false, what's the translational impact?" The reason
this question arises is that it's possible that a translation derived by
applying the AP might be _no different_ from a translation which was
derived from a case-by-case examination of the 35 occurrences of
RWME in Coptic Thomas. Even though the application of the AP
would certainly yield inaccurate results if used on a broad range of
Coptic writings, the particular usages of RWME in Thomas might be
such that the application of AP against _them_ might yield accurate
results accidentally. (This is an application of the "Blind Pig Principle",
namely that even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Or is that
the Blind Squirrel Principle?)

While it's true that I _felt_ that certain RWME-contexts in Thomas
were male-gendered rather than gender-neutral, feelings aren't
tools of cognition, so the thing to do seemed to be to look at the
Greek NT parallels of Thomas' RWME-sayings. Frankly, I was
disappointed at the results; in every case in which there was a
word in the Greek that corresponded to RWME (other than cases
like 'someone' or 'no one'), it was ANTHROPOS, not ANHR.
Especially pertinent was L72 (the Divider saying) where Jesus
addresses someone in a salutation that even Meyer renders in
male terms as 'mister'. In the Greek, however (Lk 12:13), the
salutation employs ANTHROPOS, while the person addressed
is referred to only as 'someone in the crowd'. Could it be that
what such a salutation really meant (but contra Meyer's translation
of it) was 'Oh human!' rather than 'Oh man!'? If so, then it would
seem at least plausible that a case-by-case examination of
RWME-usages would yield the same results as applying AP,
unsound though AP is.

At this point, I thought to ask the second question, "Even if AP
were true, what would the translational results be?" In other words,
even if RWME corresponded to ANTHROPOS, was it true, as Meyer
implied, that ANTHROPOS should always be translated in a gender-
neutral way? Here, the Marlowe piece that J.S. Chandler provided a
link to gives a negative answer from a general viewpoint. Not having
that kind of expertise myself, the best way I could think of to answer
the question was to see whether the Greek translators on the Jesus
Seminar translation panel agreed with Meyer and Patterson in their
translational elimination of 'man'. I was pleased to find that they didn't.

Although there was an overall attempt by the Jesus Seminar to go
to what is called 'inclusive language', the translation of Thomas
sayings involving RWME differed in three cases from the translation
of parallel Greek passages involving ANTHROPOS. I previously
mentioned L78.2, where Meyer and Patterson have 'person'
dressed in fine clothes, but the JSem Greek translators have 'man
dressed in fine clothes. Add to that 86.2, where the Meyer-Patterson
translation changes singular to plural to yield 'human beings' [have no
place to lay their heads and rest'], but where the JSem Greek translators
have 'son of Adam'. And 63.1, where the JSem Greek translators have
'rich man', but Meyer-Patterson has 'rich person'. (At least, that's the way
it is in _The Five Gospels_. In _The Complete Gospels_, however,
which I thought was the same, 'rich person' has unaccountably been
changed to 'rich man' in the Thomas translation. Not the doing of
Meyer and Patterson, I assume.)

What this shows, I think, is that the Greek translators on the JSem
translational panel didn't agree with Meyer and Patterson on a
radical program of translating every occurrence of ANTHROPOS
in gender-neutral terms, _even though_ those other translators
were interested in eliminating gender-bias. This in turn agrees
with what Marlowe has to say, so I think it's fair to conclude that
what Meyer takes as an implication of the Anthropos Principle
is in fact - and independently of the Principle - unsound as well.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

PBS has an online version of the Gospel of Thomas, said to
be from the 3rd edition of _The Complete Gospels_ (TCG):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/gthomas.html

Interestingly, this differs from both of the two that I have in print,
namely the 1994 "revised and expanded" version of TCG, and
the 1993 edition of _The Five Gospels_ (T5G). The other day,
when I spotted 'rich man' in 63.1 of TCG '94, I was taken aback
because I had thought the T5G and TCG versions were identical.
Turns out they aren't. Though the differences are minor (except
for 'rich man'), there are 21 differences in 12 sayings, viz.:

L3, 5, 6, 14, 27, 41, 63, 64, 81, 93, 96, 110

A quick look at the PBS version indicates some instances of
agreement with T5G '93 and some of agreement with TCG '94.
With respect to the major difference between versions, the
PBS version has 'rich man' in 63.1. This must be a mistake,
since it's the only place that 'man' appears in a JSem translation
by Meyer and Patterson. What this means is that the versions
considered the latest and most authoritative actually contain a
significant error not present in the earlier T5G version. If the
3rd edition of TCG attempted to bring TCG into line with T5G,
it failed on a key point.

To me, all this sounds like what one might find if examining several
different ancient manuscripts of the same text. We apparently
haven't succeeded in eliminating scribal variation in this electronic
age.The more things change, the more they remain the same?

Mike Grondin

I have an observation,

Could the lack of male dominance in the translation be a subtle or not
so subtle left over from assuming that Gospel of Thomas must be in
fact a gnostic text?

That is, because the gnostics might have used certain forms ( Later)
removing the male oriented original intent. (Due to their beliefs
systems)

The translators would be inclined to translate and remove the male
orientation, which likely was the case in the original Greek copy( Or
Aramaic).

Either way I ask this?


How it is translated today(  say by removing the male dominance Of
ANTHROPOS, and other words within the text).


WOuld that be how it was written or originally intended.

That is we may( and others may want to make it culturally acceptable,
and bring certain bias to the text which might never have occurred
when it was originally written.

I would say "How " it is translated should be focused in on the
timeline.

If it would not have been said or written in that  day and time? It
should not be translated in a way  that differs from that text and
it's Sitz im leben.

Therefore, in the society and time in which it occurred. Which is the
most likely translation?

I would suggest that it would be male,but I ask openly.


Regards,

John Moon
Springfield,Tenn.
John Moon



On May 5, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Michael Grondin wrote:

> What this shows, I think, is that the Greek translators on the JSem
> translational panel didn't agree with Meyer and Patterson on a
> radical program of translating every occurrence of ANTHROPOS
> in gender-neutral terms, _even though_ those other translators
> were interested in eliminating gender-bias. This in turn agrees
> with what Marlowe has to say, so I think it's fair to conclude that
> what Meyer takes as an implication of the Anthropos Principle
> is in fact - and independently of the Principle - unsound as well.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John Moon asks:
> Could the lack of male dominance in the translation be a subtle or not
> so subtle left over from assuming that Gospel of Thomas must be in
> fact a gnostic text?

Absolutely not. Neither Meyer nor Patterson think it's a gnostic text.
Their translation(s) derive from two (unsound) principles:

1. That RWME corresponds to ANTHRWPOS, and that
2. ANTHRWPOS should always be translated as gender-neutral.

On the other side of the issue, Doresse thought (late 50's) that Thomas
was gnostic, yet he retained 'man' in his translation (_The Secret Books
of the Egyptian Gnostics_). Grant and Freedman (_The Secret Sayings
of Jesus_, 1960) also took Thomas to be gnostic, yet they used the
Schoedel translation, which retains 'man'.

Though I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with your other
questions, I think we can rule out that any version of Thomas ever had
a special vocabulary. Of course we can only speculate about an
Aramaic or Syrian version, but the Coptic RWME and the Greek
ANTHRWPOS have an ambiguity to them which is also present in
the English word 'man'. Sometimes it's a generic or species-related
meaning, as in 'Anthropology is the study of Man' or (from Thomas)
'Man is like a wise fisherman'. Sometimes it's used to refer to individuals
who happen to be male. As to how one _should_ translate Coptic Thomas,
that question would lead to an interminable debate which would, I think,
come down in the end to one's point of view.

Mike Grondin

My correspondence with Marvin Meyer having come to an
unsatisfactory close, I wrote to Stephen Patterson last Monday
to see if he would be willing to discuss his translations with me.
At first, the indications were good. He was much more forth-
coming than Meyer, who had written less than half a dozen
sentences each time. Interestingly, although Patterson seemed
to agree with the (unsound) "Anthropos Principles" as I stated
them to him, he offered a different justification for his translation
of 'rwme' - namely that "... in today's English 'man' [has] become
very gender-specific and particular ...". Be that as it may (and I
pointed out to him that folks are still able to understand the non-
gender-specific sense of 'man', even if they don't use it in their
own writings or speakings), this is still not a good reason to
eliminate 'man' entirely from Thomas translations, since there
are certainly some contexts within Thomas where the gender-
specific sense of 'man' is what was intended.

Unfortunately, Patterson hasn't answered my second note. I gave
it a few days, thinking that he might be mulling over his response,
but it appears now that he doesn't intend to respond. I find this very
disappointing. In fact, both he and Meyer have been diminished in
my eyes. I believe that scholars worthy of the name ought to be willing
to discuss the reasons for their decisions. Heck, I've been challenged
before, and I've never taken personal affront or refused to dialogue.
But I'll let the reader be the judge as to whether I said anything in the
note quoted in its entirety below that would have caused Patterson
to decide not to respond to it:

---------------------------------------------------------

Hi Steve,

I was delighted with your note. It gave me what I was looking for,
which was insight into the reasoning behind the absence of the
word 'man' from some translations of Thomas. I may not agree
with that reasoning, but I think it needs to be clearly stated and it
needs to be defensible, if translation decisions based on it are
to be considered sound.

One matter that needs to be cleared away is the notion that the
Coptic word RWME corresponds to, is synonymous with, or is
equivalent to, the Greek word ANTHRWPOS. Actually, it isn't.
My investigation of early Sahidic translations of the Greek NT
revealed that RWME was used to translate not only ANTHRWPOS,
but ANHR as well. The implications of this, as I see it, are two:

1. One can't assume that any and every instance of RWME in
a Coptic text has ANTHRWPOS behind it, and
2. The concept of RWME in the Coptic mind must have been
ambiguous, but in some cases definitely male (as in ANHR).

The second point I wish to make about Coptic, before turning
to consideration of 'anthrwpos' is one that Marv Meyer mentioned
to me in a brief correspondence we had last week. He said that
Coptic had words for 'male' and 'female', so the elimination of
the word 'man' wasn't as bleak as I described (no occurrences
of the word 'man', but every occurrence of 'woman' retained).
This is true as far as it goes, but the words 2OOYT and C2IME
aren't treated on a par with each other in your translation. The
latter is sometimes translated 'female', sometimes 'woman',
but the former is never translated 'man', even in L114.2, where:

"... she too may become a living spirit resembling you men"

... would have been much more natural than the awkward:

"... she too may become a living spirit resembling you males".

BTW, while we're on this subject, have you noticed that the TCG
version of your translation actually has one 'man' in it? L63.1 has
'rich man' in the 2nd edition of TCG (don't know about the 1st),
and it apparently wasn't corrected in the 3rd edition (I don't have
the 3rd edition either, but it's been put online by PBS). The number
of "scribal variations" to be found in the various versions of the SV
is somewhat amusing, I must say, in this electronic age.

OK, on to 'anthrwpos'. One thing I think is definitely needed here
is consistency between the JSem translations of Thomas and the
NT. If that can't be achieved, then I think it should be stated how
and why the two differ in translational principles.

The great issue of how to translate 'anthrwpos' seems to me to
be a very contentious one. Aside from your reasoning (which I'll
get to below), I've read stuff from both sides, including this online:

http://www.bible-researcher.com:80/anthropos.html

As to your reasoning, I'm not sure how to understand it, or how
to assess the strength of it (if I'm talking like a logician, that's
because I am one, by inclination and training). You write:

"... in today's English 'man' [has] become very gender-specific
and particular."

What seems to be true about it is that most every _new usage_
of 'man' in modern-day English is like this. But it can't be the case,
I think, that even the younger generation fails to _understand_
the generic (?) use of the word 'man', for if that were so, they
would be mightily confused when they heard such sayings as
"Man doesn't live by bread alone" or "What does it profit a man...?"
If they didn't understand this sense of the word 'man', they would
be thinking of males, and wondering why these sayings were talking
about men and excluding women.

I could go on with this, but it isn't my purpose here to present a
complete contrary case. I just wanted to indicate some of the
serious objections that've come to mind. You've probably heard
most of it before, but I think that these issues should be addressed
in a clear statement of justification if the JSem decides to go in
that direction. Whatever they decide with respect to 'anthrwpos',
however, the situation with 'rwme' is different, since it may sometimes
mean 'anhr'. Seems to me that that calls for a case-by-case analysis,
rather than a blanket treatment. Although it's possible, it's hard to
believe that such a case-by-case analysis would yield the same
result - namely, the total absence of 'man' from Thomas.

Cheers,
Mike Grondin
------------------------ (end of note to Patterson) ---------------------

Browsing through the Westar Institute's online translation of
Thomas from TCG, I happened to run across another amusing
anomaly - there's a second 'man' in it! Saying 35 starts out
"One can't enter a strong man's house ...". The word in question
is 'xwwre', not 'rwme', and it's really an adjective. Literally, the
phrase in question reads "the house of the strong", but the rest of
saying talks about tying someone's hands, so 'man' certainly
isn't out of order. It is strange, though, to find that word in a published
translation attributed to Meyer and/or Patterson. A quick check of
other Meyer and Patterson translations (including T5G) indicates that
nowhere else is 'man' to be found in L35. So this joins L63.1 as
anomalies within TCG, making it perhaps the "black sheep" of the
"Manless Family" of Thomas translations? (:-)

Mike Grondin

I'm pleased to report that Steve Patterson has answered the
note I copied to the list a couple days ago. I wrote back,
mentioning a few new issues, but mainly responding to his
statement that he doubted whether he and Meyer had made
a blanket translational decision about 'rwme'. Below is my
response in its entirety:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-

Hi Steve,

Thanks so much for your note. I've been down in the dumps this
past week, wondering what I might have said that would have
caused you to decide not to respond. I figured, though, that any
really good scholar wouldn't mind being challenged. I'm relieved
that you lived up to your rep and didn't disappoint!

BTW, I've found a second 'man' in TCG. L35 starts out "One
can't enter a strong man's house ...". Not 'rwme' this time (which
is why I missed it at first), but again, it's 'person', not 'man', in T5G.
Reporting this to our email list yesterday, I jokingly referred to TCG
as the "black sheep" of the "Manless Family" of Thomas translations.
(That's my sense of humor for you.)

I'm very surprised to hear that there was no blanket treatment
of 'rwme' in SV Thomas, since I feel very strongly that there are
contexts where singular, gendered 'man' is what was intended.
Particularly pertinent in this regard are five sayings that compare
the kingdom to a human being doing something-or-other. Of those
five, two (L96 and 97) compare the kingdom to a C2IME, which
comes out 'woman' in those sayings. The other three (57, 98, 109)
compare the kingdom to a RWME, and in every case SV has 'person'.
What I ask myself is this: isn't it clear that the original intention was to
compare the kingdom sometimes to a woman and sometimes to a man?
- rather than sometimes to a woman and all other times to a person of
unspecified gender? I think so, and it's for that reason that I find it
almost impossible to believe that a case-by-case analysis wouldn't
yield even one place in Thomas where the intention was to designate
'man' in a gendered way.

Well, that's where I'm coming from anyway. I'd still like to get in touch
with Prof. Bethge or someone from the Berlin Working Group to find
out what their thinking was in regard to the English translation of
Thomas in SQE 15. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a URL
or email address yet. If you can be any help in this regard, I'd be very
grateful. And thanks again for your comments thus far.

Best,
Mike G.
------------------------ (end of note to SP) -----------------------------

Mike-



Glad to hear Steven Patterson responded to your inquiry, but I think you
should cut out the super-humble tone you're taking with them. It makes you
sound like you're in awe of them when you don't need to be at all. They're
just people.



I don't care what letters they have after their name: YOU are doing THEM a
favor by helping them refine their translations. You probably know the
Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas better than any other person on the
planet. If they blow you off, it's their loss - don't get down in the dumps
about it.



Andrew





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Andrew. I needed that - for more than one reason.
Among other things, I was beginning to feel that I was talking
to myself on the list, since no one was responding. Re the
Patterson correspondence, I am in awe of people who have
reputable published works, but you're right about the obsequious
tone in spots. I cringed when I re-read it. In other spots, though,
my criticism seems very intense. Needs balance, I think.

As to refining their translations, I don't think that's likely to happen.
Their last translations are now over 10 years old, and I doubt
if either one of them is going to revisit Thomas. That's part of the
problem of writing to them - that it's old news to them now. I think
the most likely impact my letters might have is that the two instances
of 'man' that I found in TCG might be replaced by 'person' in the
projected new edition that Patterson referred to. It'd be ironic if that's
what happens. (Patterson said that he had forwarded my notes on to
Bob Miller, the editor of TCG.) I didn't get the impression that Miller's
revision is a wholly new SV, but if it is, or if I hear of any such thing,
I'll do everything I can to make my views known.

Mike G.

It's probably pretty obvious that the Greek word 'anthropos' was
the basis of the English words 'anthropology' and 'anthropoid'
(a human-like being, especially certain apes, or having human-like
characteristics). What's not so obvious to those unfamiliar with
Greek (including myself) is that 'aner' is the basis for the English
word 'android', revived by Science Fiction writers of the 50's to
mean an artificial human-like critter ('droid' for short). The 'd' comes
in because 'aner' is an irregular noun many of whose forms (e.g.,
genitive 'andros') contain a 'd'.

Unfortunately, this doesn't help to clarify the difference between
'anhr' and 'anthrwpos' in the NT, because it's certainly not the same
as the difference between 'android' and 'anthropoid'. Neither of
the latter have a male-specific meaning, but in Greek, 'anhr' was
apparently used for males only. (Though, as noted, both 'anhr'
and 'anthrwpos' were translated into Coptic as 'rwme'.)

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

This is to inform members that I've distilled the thoughts expressed
here in a series of messages from 4/23 through 5/17 into an opinion
piece titled "No Man's Land: The Meyer-Patterson Family of Thomas
Translations", posted to my website as:

http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/noman.htm

The main page now has a slightly different look as well. Comments,
suggestions, corrections and criticisms are welcome.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

For those interested in a possible underlying Syriac or Aramaic
version of Thomas (or Proto-Thomas) there is an intersting recent blog
post by April DeConick
http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-evidence-for-
aramaic.html

Andrew Criddle

As a shorter URL use http://tinyurl.com/5b5t9h

Andrew Criddle


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: andrewcriddle
   To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:34 PM
   Subject: [GTh] Aramaic substratum in Thomas ?


   For those interested in a possible underlying Syriac or Aramaic
   version of Thomas (or Proto-Thomas) there is an intersting recent blog
   post by April DeConick
   http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-evidence-for-
   aramaic.html

   Andrew Criddle





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Apologies for cross posting)

Hello all-

Two summers ago, I announced the publication of the hardback edition
of my book, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the
Surviving Greek Manuscripts, via email discussion lists. It seemed at
the time that the lists offered a great way to reach potential
readers interested in the subject, and I planned to make a similar
announcement for the paperback edition this summer (for those
interested, see my website: gospels.net) However, I can't help but
notice that the times seem to have changed significantly.

With the exception of B-greek, all the early Christianity e-lists I'm
subscribed to (crosstalk2, gthomas, textualcriticism, TC-Alternate-
List, etc.) seem to have fallen largely into disuse. I used to learn
about important new publications and follow substantive, ongoing
debates involving many participants. Now, I can only glean precious
little information from the ever more infrequent messages that get
posted (many of which are just references to blogs).  I even checked
Mark Goodacre's ntgateway.com (the "website-of-record" for New
Testament studies, in my opinion) to see if I was missing something
and  discovered that it now only mentions four lists (Synoptic-L,
Kata Markon, John Lit Internet Discussion, and Acts-L) and two of
these (Synoptic-L & John Lit) appear to have disappeared (apologies,
Mark, for dragging you into this). What gives?!

Is my perception wrong? If not, where have all the scholars (and
others) who used to contribute to the e-lists gone? Has everyone
given up on studying early Christianity? I highly doubt that (though
perhaps interest in the "historical Jesus" has waned). Have they
given up on using the internet in their research? I highly doubt that
as well. My suspicion is that they are simply using the internet in
new ways to gather and disseminate information (blogs, RSS feeds,
etc.), but I'm not fully aware of how they are going about it.
So, if others are willing to share their secrets, my question is
simply this: HOW ARE OTHERS _NOW_ USING THE INTERNET IN THEIR STUDY
OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY? How are are people using the internet to get
information about significant new publications (books and articles)?
How are people navigating the blogosphere (and what are the most
widely read blogs)? What else am I missing? (I'm guessing a an awful
lot).

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I think people are still reading elists, just not talking much, so you can
still announce publications and reach a reasonable audience.  The one that
seems to be still very active is biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com.
christian_origins@yahoogroups.com has fits and starts.

I think that many people do read blogs on a regular basis.  I use bloglines
(http://www.bloglines.com/) to alert me to postings on blogs that interest
me.  http://www.biblioblogs.com/ is a good place to start reading and from
there on in you can find links to other blogs that might be of interest.
Biblioblogs, however, tends not to list too many of the blogs that focus on
the non-cannonical texts, April DeConick's being a major exception.

Blogs are patchy.  You need to be a bit discriminating.  But then, the
quality of posts on email lists can be patchy, too. :-)

Judy

--
Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351 Australia
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/chaplaincy/uniting/ and
           http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Monday, 23 June 2008 3:59 PM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GTh] Are e-lists dying?
>
> (Apologies for cross posting)
>
> Hello all-
>
> Two summers ago, I announced the publication of the hardback
> edition of my book, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical
> Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts, via email
> discussion lists. It seemed at the time that the lists
> offered a great way to reach potential readers interested in
> the subject, and I planned to make a similar announcement for
> the paperback edition this summer (for those interested, see
> my website: gospels.net) However, I can't help but notice
> that the times seem to have changed significantly.
>
> With the exception of B-greek, all the early Christianity
> e-lists I'm subscribed to (crosstalk2, gthomas,
> textualcriticism, TC-Alternate- List, etc.) seem to have
> fallen largely into disuse. I used to learn about important
> new publications and follow substantive, ongoing debates
> involving many participants. Now, I can only glean precious
> little information from the ever more infrequent messages
> that get posted (many of which are just references to blogs).
>  I even checked Mark Goodacre's ntgateway.com (the
> "website-of-record" for New Testament studies, in my opinion)
> to see if I was missing something and  discovered that it now
> only mentions four lists (Synoptic-L, Kata Markon, John Lit
> Internet Discussion, and Acts-L) and two of these (Synoptic-L
> & John Lit) appear to have disappeared (apologies, Mark, for
> dragging you into this). What gives?!
>
> Is my perception wrong? If not, where have all the scholars (and
> others) who used to contribute to the e-lists gone? Has
> everyone given up on studying early Christianity? I highly
> doubt that (though perhaps interest in the "historical Jesus"
> has waned). Have they given up on using the internet in their
> research? I highly doubt that as well. My suspicion is that
> they are simply using the internet in new ways to gather and
> disseminate information (blogs, RSS feeds, etc.), but I'm not
> fully aware of how they are going about it.
> So, if others are willing to share their secrets, my question
> is simply this: HOW ARE OTHERS _NOW_ USING THE INTERNET IN
> THEIR STUDY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY? How are are people using
> the internet to get information about significant new
> publications (books and articles)?
> How are people navigating the blogosphere (and what are the
> most widely read blogs)? What else am I missing? (I'm
> guessing a an awful lot).
>
> Thanks in advance for any guidance!
>
> Andrew
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> Interlinear translation:
> http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Andrew.  I don't think e-lists are dying and crosstalk and John-Lit are
still very much alive with robust memberships.  I think we have reached a
point, with a distillation of memberships to serious participants, where the
standard topics have been covered ad nauseum.  There will be a surge of
activity on certain issues at times.  I will be looking at John-Lit to see
what can be done to stimulate more online activity.  Scholarly discussions
by academics can be cyclic and often wane while the "loose" e-lists often
are much more active.  Maybe I'll embark on a recruiting program, "Wanted,
serious scholars or informed amateurs to discuss Johannine literature or
Historical Jesus research.  Apply at...."

Jack


Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew" <andrew.bernhard@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: [GTh] Are e-lists dying?


> (Apologies for cross posting)
>
> Hello all-
>
> Two summers ago, I announced the publication of the hardback edition
> of my book, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the
> Surviving Greek Manuscripts, via email discussion lists. It seemed at
> the time that the lists offered a great way to reach potential
> readers interested in the subject, and I planned to make a similar
> announcement for the paperback edition this summer (for those
> interested, see my website: gospels.net) However, I can't help but
> notice that the times seem to have changed significantly.
>
> With the exception of B-greek, all the early Christianity e-lists I'm
> subscribed to (crosstalk2, gthomas, textualcriticism, TC-Alternate-
> List, etc.) seem to have fallen largely into disuse. I used to learn
> about important new publications and follow substantive, ongoing
> debates involving many participants. Now, I can only glean precious
> little information from the ever more infrequent messages that get
> posted (many of which are just references to blogs).  I even checked
> Mark Goodacre's ntgateway.com (the "website-of-record" for New
> Testament studies, in my opinion) to see if I was missing something
> and  discovered that it now only mentions four lists (Synoptic-L,
> Kata Markon, John Lit Internet Discussion, and Acts-L) and two of
> these (Synoptic-L & John Lit) appear to have disappeared (apologies,
> Mark, for dragging you into this). What gives?!
>
> Is my perception wrong? If not, where have all the scholars (and
> others) who used to contribute to the e-lists gone? Has everyone
> given up on studying early Christianity? I highly doubt that (though
> perhaps interest in the "historical Jesus" has waned). Have they
> given up on using the internet in their research? I highly doubt that
> as well. My suspicion is that they are simply using the internet in
> new ways to gather and disseminate information (blogs, RSS feeds,
> etc.), but I'm not fully aware of how they are going about it.
> So, if others are willing to share their secrets, my question is
> simply this: HOW ARE OTHERS _NOW_ USING THE INTERNET IN THEIR STUDY
> OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY? How are are people using the internet to get
> information about significant new publications (books and articles)?
> How are people navigating the blogosphere (and what are the most
> widely read blogs)? What else am I missing? (I'm guessing a an awful
> lot).
>
> Thanks in advance for any guidance!
>
> Andrew
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

2008/6/23 Andrew <andrew.bernhard@...>:

> I even checked
> Mark Goodacre's ntgateway.com (the "website-of-record" for New
> Testament studies, in my opinion) to see if I was missing something
> and discovered that it now only mentions four lists (Synoptic-L,
> Kata Markon, John Lit Internet Discussion, and Acts-L) and two of
> these (Synoptic-L & John Lit) appear to have disappeared (apologies,
> Mark, for dragging you into this). What gives?!

Hi Andrew.  You are looking at the wrong page.  Go to
http://ntgateway.com/E-Lists.htm and that has the revised details for
lists like Synoptic-L.  Nevertheless, as always, the page requires a
few additional updates.

I agree that the e-lists are not as robust and healthy as they once
were and perhaps the biggest surprise is the low traffic now on Xtalk.
  I think the blog world has more to do with this than anything else.

Cheers
Mark

--
Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
Associate Professor
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

http://NTGateway.com/goodacre

Thank you all for (what I hope will be just) initial feedback. Very
helpful, indeed.

Special thanks to:

1. Mike Grondin: For allowing this conversation to proceed; it might
have been obstructed on other lists as "off-topic" or worse. I really
value the e-lists and have since the mid-90s (!) as a source of
information and am fearful that their value may be diminishing. I
think honest and open discussion will be vital to prevent this from
happening.

2. Judy Redman: For sharing her wisdom first (even if she got a
headstart timewise because she's in Australia! :-). I think you may
be very correct, Judy, that people (like me) are still reading e-
lists but just not writing as much. I'm definitely going to subscribe
to the biblical-studies and christian_origins lists you mention and
see if I can pick up some additional info there. I share your opinion
of biblioblogs. The three blogs I'm particularly fond of are: April
Deconick's (forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/); Mark Goodacre's
(www.ntgateway.com/weblog/); and Stephen Carlson's
(www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/). The names of any additional
noteworthy blogs would be greatly appreciated (I might be in the
process of revising my website or something).

3. Jack Kilmon: For his insights. You unquestionably have a point
that the standard topics probably have been covered ad nauseum (and
people get annoyed when the same old topics are covered repeatedly).
Perhaps we should talk further about a "recruiting program," or
something like it. I've got some thoughts of my own about improving
the quality and quantity of posts to e-lists but am trying to collect
some feedback first.

4. Mark Goodacre: For sharing my perspective about the e-lists: they
don't seem to be nearly as robust as they once were! I'll include
some hard numbers below to support that perception. But before I do,
I'll also note that I agree with you that the blogs have had a major
impact, and scholars (such as yourself) are probably devoting more of
their internet time to those instead of focusing on the e-lists.

The following is a little data about some of the e-lists I mentioned
in my previous post.

***CROSSTALK2***
Trend: 1702 posts (in the first six months of 2002) -> 1334 (2003) ->
1628 (2004) -> 1374 (2005) -> 964 (2006) -> 653 (2007) -> 141 (2008)

ANALYSIS:
--Steep decline (with one aberation in 2004).
--Current activity is 10% of what it was in 2005 and only 8% of what
it was in 2002.

***TEXTUALCRITICISM***
Trend: 754 (2005) -> 735 (2006) -> 468 (2007) -> 326 (2008)

ANALYSIS:
-- Steady decline (with no aberations).
-- Currently activity is 43% of what it was in 2005.

***GTHOMAS***
Trend: 627 (2002) -> 271 (2003) -> 253 (2004) -> 294 (2005) -> 180
(2006) -> 480 (2007) ->  132 (2008)

ANALYSIS:
-- Decline (with one major aberation in 2007).
-- Current activity is 44% of what it was in 2005 and 21% of what it
was in 2002.

SUMMARY:
The early Christianity email discussion lists I am subscribed to are
in serious decline (Andrew adopts the tone of a lab report, which
seems to be what he's writing). The Crosstalk2 list appears to be in
an utter free fall, as Mark Goodacre noted previously. The
textualcriticism list has been steadily declining year after year.
The Gthomas list (despite a very good year in 2007) also seems to be
declining as well. All three lists are siginificantly (more than 50%)
below where they were in 2005.

ANYBODY GOT ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ABOUT WHY THE GROUPS ARE
DECLINING, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW THEY CAN BE REVITALIZED?

Best,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I've always believed that such meta-issues as you bring up are in
order, and I think the other moderators agree, so don't worry about
that. In fact, I had been thinking about posting a "State of the List"
message to discuss the relatively low number of contributors lately,
despite my efforts to get inactive members (i.e., those who don't
receive email messages) more interested/active, by sending offlist
messages to let them know what we had been discussing. That didn't
work, but I haven't yet given up on the goal of increasing list activity
without sacrificing quality.

Your statistics show that our list isn't the only one suffering a decline
in activity (and hence, presumably in interest), which is good news for
us, I suppose. Still, if it turns out that nothing can be done to maintain
a "critical mass" of dialogue on these lists, those of us who care will
have to consider locking the doors and going to more fruitful methods
of sharing and discussing information and opinions in our areas of
interest. Before going down that route, however, I think we should
explore some creative ways to bring more life to the scholarly e-lists.
In that effort, it might be useful to do some kind of a survey to find
out how e-literate scholars interact with groups and blogs, and what
perceptions cause them to act in certain ways (hence what might
cause them to act differently).

Regards,
Mike

I am of the same opinion, Mike.  I don't think it is as much blog
competitions as it is cyclic activity and availability of the scholarly
community.  A new generation of academics and students move in and are
unaware of the lists.  I think an e-forum discussion list circular outlining
the scholarly lists and their purposes to the religion/Bible Study
departments of the universities wellactive in these fields would be helpful.
The Yahoo Groups directory has been so clogged with nut stuff and porn stuff
that scholars and students stay clear unless they are specifically looking
for a group.  In short, we need a recruitment program in the academic
communities and members who are active in those communities can be called
upon to help.  I'm going to crosspost this to our other two lists also..

Jack


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Are e-lists dying?


> Hi Andrew,
>
> I've always believed that such meta-issues as you bring up are in
> order, and I think the other moderators agree, so don't worry about
> that. In fact, I had been thinking about posting a "State of the List"
> message to discuss the relatively low number of contributors lately,
> despite my efforts to get inactive members (i.e., those who don't
> receive email messages) more interested/active, by sending offlist
> messages to let them know what we had been discussing. That didn't
> work, but I haven't yet given up on the goal of increasing list activity
> without sacrificing quality.
>
> Your statistics show that our list isn't the only one suffering a decline
> in activity (and hence, presumably in interest), which is good news for
> us, I suppose. Still, if it turns out that nothing can be done to maintain
> a "critical mass" of dialogue on these lists, those of us who care will
> have to consider locking the doors and going to more fruitful methods
> of sharing and discussing information and opinions in our areas of
> interest. Before going down that route, however, I think we should
> explore some creative ways to bring more life to the scholarly e-lists.
> In that effort, it might be useful to do some kind of a survey to find
> out how e-literate scholars interact with groups and blogs, and what
> perceptions cause them to act in certain ways (hence what might
> cause them to act differently).
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I'm rather in the woodwork at the moment  reading posts but leaving no
evidence of doing so.   I have a full-time job and doing a  doctorate part-time,
which is busy, but right now is conference season, which at  least has left me
refreshingly single-minded preparing for them.    Is it partly just a seasonal
phenomenon, though?  Holidays, good  weather (ish), and conferences in full
summer glut.

Jed Chandler






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know from personal experience that blogging decreases my ability to
participate on lists.  I only have so much time avaible for this kind of
activity, because like Jed I have a full time job and am studying part time,
so if I spend time blogging, it means I don't spend that time contributing
to lists.  Blogging lets me operate differently to list membership and I
think both are valuable.  On this list, I talk exclusively about Thomas,
whereas on my blog, I can talk about other things that interesect with my
research.

I have a link to this list on my blogroll, and have just moved it up above
the archives, so that it might be easier to find.  People definitely visit
my blog looking for info about Gospel of Thomas.

Judy

--
Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351 Australia
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/chaplaincy/uniting/ and
           http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of CJED5@...
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2008 4:57 AM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Are e-lists dying?
>
> I'm rather in the woodwork at the moment  reading posts but
> leaving no
> evidence of doing so.   I have a full-time job and doing a
> doctorate part-time,
> which is busy, but right now is conference season, which at
> least has left me
> refreshingly single-minded preparing for them.    Is it
> partly just a seasonal
> phenomenon, though?  Holidays, good  weather (ish), and
> conferences in full summer glut.
>
> Jed Chandler
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> Interlinear translation:
> http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>