On Fri, September 12, 2008 10:34 am, Michael Grondin wrote:

>
> Could you say something about the differences between these two books,
> and how your prospective concordance differs from them?

Hi Mike-
For general reference purposes I suppose either of these two works would
do fine; as its title suggests the Greek-English version displays the
English (NIV) glosses for the relevant Greek GNT text and also the NIV
text in the context line. By contrast, the Exhaustive Greek version uses
Greek in the context lines. It’s interesting to note that the
Greek-English version indexes all Greek words in UBS4, NA26 AND the
eclectic text used as the basis for the NIV (in my opinion the most
abysmal translation of the Bible ever produced). Both concordances use the
Goodrick-Kohlenberger word numbering system (much like the Strong
numbering system, but updated to accommodate more modern Greek texts. This
is an especially useful feature for folks who are toally committed to
never learning the Greek alphabet well enough to look up the words with
out such "tools" ).

As an aside if you are REALLY intent on getting a good concordance, it
would be hard to beat Kurt Alands’s _Vollstandige Konkordanz zum
Griechischen Neuen Testament_ (but get out your billfold for this one).
Aland's concordance is published in three parts with the last two parts
having some very intriguing statistical analyses (somewhat on the order of
Morgenthaler’s _Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes_, that was
based on the WH Greek text).

The VK is actually what inspired me to work on my project (which is not
quite in the same genre as any the works I just mentioned- I prefer to
call it a “Lexical Index”). While the “Lexical Index” does provide the
Book-Chapter-Verse citation for every word in NA27, it goes beyond that by
also providing complete grammatical parsing, a reverse index (where one
may identify the “dictionary form” of a word from the inflected form, as
it is used in the text), a book-by-book and word-by word “parsing guide”
for the entire GNT and several distribution tables, etc. In addition, I’ve
formatted it such a way that there is a separate “lexical index” for each
book of the GNT as well as for the arbitrary collections such as the
Synoptics and the Pauline corpus. Will it ever be done? Who knows! Will it
ever be published? I highly doubt it (it’s just to confounded BIG for any
sensible publisher to even consider). Most of it is already in PDF, so if
I ever do get it all “done” I’ll probably just distribute electronically
(for free).

Hope this helps answer your questions.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

I don't know if it matters to this discussion particularly but this
logion also appears in the Syriac tradition in a different, and
arguably earlier form. It is quoted three times in the 4th century
anonymous Syriac work, 'The book of steps' or 'Liber Graduum'. The
Syriac text of the book of steps was published with a Latin
translation in 1926 by M. Kmosko.

The (possibly) interesting things about the Syriac quote are 1) that
it is more compact and 2) different translations and mutations of the
same few Syriac words can explain several features found in the longer
Clement and GT versions, (hence using the usual TC rules, the Syriac
may be the source).

The Book of Steps was translated into English recently by Kitchen and
Parmentier in 2004, ISBN 0-87907-696-8

The three quotes are:
Kmosko Columns.lines - Kitchen and Parmentier page
49.26 - p. 25 'As you shall be found, so you shall be taken'
52.7-8 - p. 25 'As you are found in victory, so you shall be taken,
wearing your wreath'
344.15 - p. 142 'As you are found, so shall you live'

ANALYSIS:
The Syriac ethpa`el verb 'ethdamar' = 'to be amazed' of Clement's
version and the GT is very similar on the page to the ethpa`el verb
'ethdabar' = 'to be led' or 'to be taken'. The difference is only a
very slight jot of the pen to mistake the letter meem for the letter
beth. This may account for the words, 'be amazed' in Clement and the
GT. Again, the underlying Syriac pa`el verb 'dabar' means 'to rule'
which is also found in Clement's version and the GT.

Any thoughts? (I do not have Klijn's book)

Best regards,
Steven Ring.

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, Kevin, for your post on Klijn's analysis of L 2.
> I have been reflecting on it a great deal. I am responding with what I
> have on it so far.
>
> > Klijn breaks down all four versions of the saying (the two in
> Clement, P. Oxy 654, and Coptic Thomas logion 2) and shows, in the
> process, how Coptic Thomas deviates from the other versions.
>
>

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Exolinguist <exolinguist@...> wrote:
>
> Nicholas Perrin's book THOMAS AND TATIAN,

Hi Don,
I am looking forward to studying Perrin's theses, which you have
summarized so well. I do not have a copy of Thomas and Tatian, but
Google has a limited preview of it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Vg7IZ0P_hwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Perrin+Thom\
as&sig=ACfU3U28Rdl0LRuLaftYj7qcpc_VGyhHeQ

regards,
Paul Lanier

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

Is anything like that [Greek NT concordance] now available online...
if one wanted to know where a particular Greek word occurred,
regardless of how it was translated, one would need a Greek concordance.

Hi Mike,

I use two main sources for listing NT and LXX occurences of specific
Greek words.

E-SWORD.NET

This free product keeps improving. Both e-sword and an open source
community continue to release new free modules. Searchable LXX and
Greek NT modules, keyed to Strong's Numbers, make listing passages
simple and quick. The modules I use include:
* GNT-WH+ (Wescott-Hort NT with Strong's Numbers)
* IGNT+ (Greek NT Interlinear with Strong's Numbers)
* TGNT+ (Tischendorf's NT with Strong's Numbers)
* LXX+ & WH+ (LXX & Wescott-Hort NT with NA26/27 variants and Strong's
Numbers)

APOSTOLICBIBLE.COM

Originally ApostolicBible had several free products available, but
they have started charging for most of them now. The interlinear LXX
(with AB Strong's Numbers) is still available for free (requires email
registration) at:

http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com

This is a pdf file, OldTestament.pdf. The formerly free products are
very useful:

* NewTestament.pdf (NT interlinear, keyed to Strong's)
* lex-conc.pdf (Greek-to-LXX/NT verse lookup, keyed to AB Strong's)
* index.pdf (English-to-Greek lookup keyed to AB Strong's)

Together these products are called Apostolic Bible Polyglot. LXX
sources are described as "1518 Aldine text, the 1518 Complutensian
text and the 15?? Sixtine text." The editor has revised Strong's
Numbers to include Greek words found in LXX but not in NT. They cal.
this AB (Apostlioc Bible?) Strong's. I am not sure which Greek NT they
use.

ALSO USEFUL

Crossway Reverse Interlinear Dictionary  (Strong's-to-English lookup).
  The English lookup is for ESV. Very useful for converting Strong's
Number to English word. I will probably create an Excel workbook to to
perform the lookup for a sequence of Strong's Numbers.

rgards,
Paul Lanier

Hi all,

THREADS works very well for the "Seek an Find" set of sayings. Here is
a summary. A complete report is in the process of being uploaded.

Text Hypothetical Relationships Evolution Analysis of Distinct
Subunits (THREADS), a method recently proposed for generating textual
taxonomic dendrograms (trees that describe text relationships), was
tested by applying it to nine parallel English texts of the "Seek and
Find" sayings family. The resulting Relationships Unrooted Sayings
Tree (RUST) is consistent with the evolution of this family from its
most ancient member, Pro 8:17, along two branches. One branch leads
from Pro 8:17 through the leaves GThom 92:1; GMatt 7:7; and GLuke
11:9. The other branch leads from Pro 8:17 through GThom 94:1-2; GHeb
4a (Strom. 2.9); GThom 2:1; POxy 654.5-9; and GHeb 4a (Strom. 2.9).
The method appears completely valid for reconstructing the evolution
of a sayings family.

The unrooted tree for the nine parallel texts indicates the saying
derived from Pro 8:17 and split into two branches, one leading to Luke
11:9 and the other leading to GHeb 4a (Strom 2.9). This agrees with
the conclusion of Patterson and others, that GThom 2:1 is independent
of GMatt 7:7//GLuke 11:9. Moreover the placements of GThom 94 (at the
beginning of the second branch) and GThom 92 (on the first branch)
agree with Patterson's conclusion that the Thomas and Q versions of
the saying cannot be "different stages on a single line of
tradition-historical development" (SJ Patterson 1993: The Gospel of
Thomas and Jesus. Polebridge Press, p. 19). The location of GMatt 7:7
along the first branch, with GLuke 11:9 extending from it, agrees with
both standard reconstruction of the Q text (Mack QS 27; Borg Q35a,
equal to GMatt 7:7 here) as well as the Ferrar Hypothesis (GLuke 11:9
depends on GMatt 7:7). Finally, the placement of the GThom 94:1 and
GThom 92:1 leaves, closest to the Pro 8:17 leaf, indicates Thomas
Logia 92 and 94 are the oldest New Testament versions of the saying
and they depend on Pro 8:17, as suggested by Davies (S Davies 2002:
The Gospel of Thomas Annotated & Explained. SkyLight Paths Publishing,
pp. 114-115).

When applied to a set of rigorously consistent English translations
for nine parallel sayings in the "Seek and Find" family, THREADS
generates a textual taxonomic dendrogram (or RUST) that agrees with
majority expert opinions of relationships among those sayings. This
suggests THREADS may be useful for confirming and extending the
understanding of the historical evolution of parallel New Testament texts.

regards,
Paul Lanier

> 49.26 - p. 25 'As you shall be found, so you shall be taken'
> 52.7-8 - p. 25 'As you are found in victory, so you shall be taken,
> wearing your wreath'
> 344.15 - p. 142 'As you are found, so shall you live'

Hi Stevan,

Even given your analysis, it appears that there's at most two
words in common between GTh.2 and any of the above lines.
In addition, the above statements concentrate on the agent
being found (presumably by God), while the agent in GTh.2
is doing the active seeking and finding. If one thought came
from the other, it seems that there must have been a significant
development in thinking in between. In any case, there's enough
difference, I think, that it's questionable whether these are true
parallels. (Note that DeConick used Liber Graduum for TOGTT
and found some parallels, but not for GTh.2.)
That's my take, anyway.

Best regards,
Mike Grondin

I hope that this message is appreciated by people who know me or my
past work. It is crossposted with XTalk2 and other lists.

A special note to the gthomas group: a similar thing with similar
cause happened to gospelthomas.com a couple years ago. I can easily
see the gospelthomas.com material going a separate way from the rest
of ECW now. If you are interested in that particularly, let me know.
My first instinct is to let it be hosted by a popular Thomas site that
already exists and will have it. Grondin comes to mind, and also
Stevan Davies.

Since it opened in 2001, the website has been widely regarded as being
a decent place to jump around the documents of the first two centuries
and get links to translations, research, and such.

This month I let the domain name expire. While this wasn't completely
intentional, I am of course culpable. A domain name in the Internet
age is more than just a resolution of squiggles into a four byte IP
address. Losing it represents a financial opportunity lost, but more
importantly, a great inconvenience to all who have extensively linked
to the site or referred to it regularly. The links number in the
thousands. The users included teachers and students.

I do have an interest in allowing the material created for ECW and for
EJW to live on in another form, under another person's or
organization's guiding hand. I cannot offer the domain name (which,
again in the Internet age, is probably worth more than the text) but I
can offer my backing of whatever project gets the site as "spiritual
successor" to the venerable (again, in the Internet age) Early
Christian Writings. I can also offer all distribution rights to the
text itself, to the extent that I am the copyright holder.

If you have any comments about this that you want to make quite
certain I see, send a message to peterkirby@... and, of
course, "discuss amongst yourselves," as Mike Myers would say.

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

Hi Mike,

Nevertheless just as I describe, there are tantalizing links between the
Syriac saying and the GT saying visible from the Syriac studies and
translation-effects points of view.

Another thought on this issue arises from an even more sceptical
position: The Syriac saying I cite is not found in the canonical
gospels, so this would also call into question whether the saying found
in the Liber Graduum was ever spoken by Christ or written in any gospel.
However, the Syriac form of the teaching in the sense, 'As you are
found, so shall you live' is corroborated by a rather detailed
application of it written by Paul, see 1 Cor7v20-24. Again, reading the
context of the third occurrence of this saying (Kitchen & Parmentier p.
142), it is written there, 'then let us listen to what our Lord said,
'as you were found, so shall you live'.' Hence, if a form of the Syriac
saying cited in the Liber Graduum was indeed spoken by Christ and
originally written in a gospel known to Paul, then it must have been
removed later, after Paul. Variance and misunderstanding in translation
is much more likely where a source text is either unpopular, or
difficult to understand, or both. In these circumstances a translator
will attempt to re-interpret, or estimate the meaning of his source and
this is how this saying in the GT and Clement comes across to me.

If as you say, other commentators have already spotted connections
between some parts of the Liber Graduum and sayings in the GT, then from
a source-critical point of view, this would make it more likely that
other connections exist. Hence, the existence of other connections
between the Liber Graduum and GT only increases the probability that
these two particular sayings are also linked. Then, since the features
of this Syriac saying can explain features in a longer GT saying, a
text-critical deduction would be that the GT saying is probably derived
from the Syriac one.

Looking at the wider (non-GT related) issues here, it is interesting to
note how the eastern Syriac-speaking tradition preserves fragments of
gospel text which were erased very early on, in the western Christian
tradition. This is not the only case of a western erasure being
preserved in the Syriac tradition, and my paper will describe some
important examples of this phenomena.

Best wishes,
Steven Ring.

Michael Grondin wrote:
>
> > 49.26 - p. 25 'As you shall be found, so you shall be taken'
> > 52.7-8 - p. 25 'As you are found in victory, so you shall be taken,
> > wearing your wreath'
> > 344.15 - p. 142 'As you are found, so shall you live'
>
> Hi Stevan,
>
> Even given your analysis, it appears that there's at most two
> words in common between GTh.2 and any of the above lines.
> In addition, the above statements concentrate on the agent
> being found (presumably by God), while the agent in GTh.2
> is doing the active seeking and finding. If one thought came
> from the other, it seems that there must have been a significant
> development in thinking in between. In any case, there's enough
> difference, I think, that it's questionable whether these are true
> parallels. (Note that DeConick used Liber Graduum for TOGTT
> and found some parallels, but not for GTh.2.)
> That's my take, anyway.
>
> Best regards,
> Mike Grondin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date: 14/09/2008
07:16
>
>

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "KirbTron" <peter@...> wrote:

> This month I let the domain name expire. While this wasn't completely
> intentional, I am of course culpable.

And, while perhaps culpable, perhaps with redemption available to me
if accepted... I have rights apparently. I will pursue all options
before giving up (contacting registrar, claiming trademark with
dispute resolution agency).

I am of course still interested in "opening up" my content more so
that other sites could use it. Grondin, what do you say?

peace,
Peter Kirby

On request of Paul Lanier, I've posted his essay "Seek and Find"
to our Files Section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)
This essay also includes as an appendix a tutorial which "describes
how to generate cluster trees for parallel texts using the free open
source programs ClustalX2, NJPLOT and PHYLIP."

In other news, I've been in contact with Peter Kirby with
respect to the possibility of copying a portion of his Thomas
content to my site. I anticipate some structural changes, but
he would, of course, get full credit of authorship. Hopefully,
we can work out the details to our mutual satisfaction.

As to Peter's attempts to regain ownership of 'early
christianwritings.com', I don't have any information. I do,
however, want to point out to Paul and others who link to
http://www.gospelthomas.com that this page is now a bunch
of garbage not under Peter's control. Links to it should be
removed, especially so as to stymie parasites who take over
an abandoned domain in hopes of hijacking its link traffic.

Cheers,
Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Game theory finds application in economics, biology and ethics.
Recently Joseph Bulbulia extended game theory to religious behavior.
Because game theory can apply to situations involving multiple persons
(players) whose decisions (moves) affect each other (payoffs), it
makes sense to apply game theory to Thomas sayings that contain all of
these elements (LL 7, 14, 26, 34, 48, 69, 88, 93, and 100). Then it
may be possible to identify successful behaviors (strategies) of the
Thomas and succeeding communities. Here this approach is described for
Thomas 14:4, "Eat What is Provided," and one of its successors,
Didache 11:4-6. I will also post a file with more detail. Here the
results are outlined.

One objective of game theory is to identify preferred behaviors. A set
of behaviors tends to establish itself when it meets the criteria of a
Nash Equilibrium. A Nash Equilibrium exists when all player strategies
are optimized. The strict definition of a Nash Equilibrium is that no
player can improve their payoff by changing strategy without at the
same time lowering the payoff of another player. The equilibrium tends
to re-establish itself when players who are adversely affected react
by changing their strategies, lowering the payoffs for others. This
initiates a process whereby the original set of strategies, optimized
for all, is re-established. Often more than one Nash Equilibrium
exists for a given problem. Nash Equilibria describe the expected sets
of behaviors in a defined situation.

In Thomas 14:4 there are two players: Disciple and Host. Each player
has two possible strategies:
- Disciple (heal, not heal)
- Host (receive, reject)
For this game one possible Nash Equilibrium exists. When the Host
receives (provides food) and Disciple heals, the payoffs for both are
maximized. The payoff for Disciple is food. The payoff for Host is
healing minus food. So if the healing is of greater value than the
food provided, then the preferred set of behaviors is Disciple(heal);
Host(receive). Neither player can improve their payoff by changing
strategy without adversely affecting the other. One important result
here is that Host will choose to reject if food is of greater value
than healing. This indicates itinerant Thomas community disciples
traded healing for food. It also suggests they were successful where
healing was valued highly or where food was not in short supply. Thus
itinerant Thomas community disciples succeeded in getting food from
wealthier households, or households where an untreatable illness existed.

Others have observed the restrictions Didache places on itinerant
apostles. For the Didache 11:4-6 game, again two players exist:
Apostle and Host. Apostle has three available strategies, Host two:
- Apostle (1 day, 2 days, 3 days)
- Host (receive, reject)
The payoffs here include food and obedience to Didache. One Nash
Equilibrium exists. This occurs when the Apostle stays one day and the
value of the food (or whatever assistance) is less than double the
value of obedience to Didache. In other words, if the instruction in
Didache is valued highly, the tendency is to provide food for one day,
unless food is extremely scarce. If Didache is not valued, the
tendency is not to assist. This indicates a subculture in which
obedience to the bishop includes limited emergency assistance to needy
believers.

What do you think?

======================
L.14 (SV) When you go into any region and walk about in the
countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal
the sick among them.

Did 11:4-6 (Loeb) Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as
the Lord, but let him stay not more than one day, or if need be a
second as well; but if he stay three days he is a false prophet. And
when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread until he
reaches his night's lodging; but if he ask for money, he is a false
prophet.
======================

regards,
Paul Lanier

On 20-Sep-08, at 7:53 PM, Paul Lanier wrote:

> What do you think?

As a semiotics guy, I'll buy it.

Jordan+

A new file has been added to our group Files section at
Yahoogroups. It's an expanded version of Paul Lanier's
latest note employing game theory to analyze Th.14 and
Didache 11. The file contains diagrams which couldn't be
reproduced in an email message. Since Paul has submitted
a relatively large number of files now, I've created a separate
folder for his writings:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files/Lanier/

Cheers,
Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

The latter half of logion 16 of the Gospel of Thomas reads as follows:

"For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two
against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father.
And they will stand solitary."

The saying is found in both Matthew and Luke.

Mt. 10:35-36 ~
"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her
mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will
be the members of his own household."

Luke 12:52-53 ~
"From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other,
three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father
against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter
against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law
against mother-in-law."

The saying derives from a passage in Micah.

Micah 7:6 ~
"For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies are the members
of his own household."
When we compare the versions is Thomas, Matthew, and Luke with the passage
in Micah 7:6, we see that Matthew begins with "For I have come to turn" and
then begins to quote Micah 7:6. Luke and Thomas, however, vary from Matthew
in the same ways.

Specifically, where Thomas has:

"there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against
three, the father against the son, and the son against the father"

Luke has:

there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against
two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son
against father

The degree of agreement between Thomas and Luke is considerable and fairly
exact. They agree in predicting that there will be five people in a
household, that three of those people will be against two and two against
three (in that order!), and that the father will be against the son and the
son against the father. Remarkably, none of these areas of agreement appear
in Matthew or Micah except 'son against father.' The addition of a
mathematical reference here in the form of 5, 3, and 2 is found only in
Thomas and Luke.

Moreover, in Micah (followed by Matthew), mention is made only of the
younger generation rising against the older generation - "a son dishonors
his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law." In Thomas and Luke, however, we find that not
only is "the son against the father" but that "the father" is also "against
the son." Luke extends this principle through the rest of his version of the
saying which he closes out with: "father against son and son against father,
mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against
daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke seems to have had two versions before him - one similar to Thomas 16b
and one similar to Matthew 10:35 (or Micah 7:6) - which he has combined and
conflated. That would explain Luke's detailed comparisons to Thomas at the
beginning of his passage as well as the overly verbose ending as he tried to
logically adapt the pattern found in the Thomas version (young vs. old *and*
old vs. young) to all the additional family pairs in the Micah/Matthew
version (daughter/mother and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law).

The context of the saying in Micah, by the way, is the time of God's
visitation of retribution on an evil generation, which is how the saying is
being used here by Jesus as, in all cases, it immediately follows the saying
declaring that Jesus has not come to bring peace but a sword, divisions,
fire, war, etc.
Regards,
- Kevin Johnson
Leicester, MA


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

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for that post--quite interesting. I'd just like to point out that
Thomas and Luke are actually even closer than you have indicated in your English
translations. The word used in Luke is "oikos," the literal and primary meaning
of which is "house."

It is interesting to note that the Pistis Sophia (p. 301, 302) also gives a
partial version of this saying, according to the Thomas-Luke tradition, with the
5-3-2 formula. The Coptic of the P.S., according to the transliteration scheme
that I use, is as follows:

jin tenou gar oun-tiou naSOpe hen ouEi enouOt. oun-Soment napOS ejen snau. anO
snau ejen Soment.

Best regards,

--Don Traxler

  "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library."


--Jorge Luís Borges



----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Johnson <achilles377@...>
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:58:42 AM
> Subject: [GTh] Five in a house
>
> The latter half of logion 16 of the Gospel of Thomas reads as follows:
>
> "For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two
> against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father.
> And they will stand solitary."
>
> The saying is found in both Matthew and Luke.
>
> Mt. 10:35-36 ~
> "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her
> mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will
> be the members of his own household."
>
> Luke 12:52-53 ~
> "From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other,
> three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father
> against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter
> against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law
> against mother-in-law."
>
> The saying derives from a passage in Micah.
>
> Micah 7:6 ~
> "For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a
> daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies are the members
> of his own household."
> When we compare the versions is Thomas, Matthew, and Luke with the passage
> in Micah 7:6, we see that Matthew begins with "For I have come to turn" and
> then begins to quote Micah 7:6. Luke and Thomas, however, vary from Matthew
> in the same ways.
>
> Specifically, where Thomas has:
>
> "there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against
> three, the father against the son, and the son against the father"
>
> Luke has:
>
> there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against
> two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son
> against father
>
> The degree of agreement between Thomas and Luke is considerable and fairly
> exact. They agree in predicting that there will be five people in a
> household, that three of those people will be against two and two against
> three (in that order!), and that the father will be against the son and the
> son against the father. Remarkably, none of these areas of agreement appear
> in Matthew or Micah except 'son against father.' The addition of a
> mathematical reference here in the form of 5, 3, and 2 is found only in
> Thomas and Luke.
>
> Moreover, in Micah (followed by Matthew), mention is made only of the
> younger generation rising against the older generation - "a son dishonors
> his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law
> against her mother-in-law." In Thomas and Luke, however, we find that not
> only is "the son against the father" but that "the father" is also "against
> the son." Luke extends this principle through the rest of his version of the
> saying which he closes out with: "father against son and son against father,
> mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against
> daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
>
> Luke seems to have had two versions before him - one similar to Thomas 16b
> and one similar to Matthew 10:35 (or Micah 7:6) - which he has combined and
> conflated. That would explain Luke's detailed comparisons to Thomas at the
> beginning of his passage as well as the overly verbose ending as he tried to
> logically adapt the pattern found in the Thomas version (young vs. old *and*
> old vs. young) to all the additional family pairs in the Micah/Matthew
> version (daughter/mother and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law).
>
> The context of the saying in Micah, by the way, is the time of God's
> visitation of retribution on an evil generation, which is how the saying is
> being used here by Jesus as, in all cases, it immediately follows the saying
> declaring that Jesus has not come to bring peace but a sword, divisions,
> fire, war, etc.
> Regards,
> - Kevin Johnson
> Leicester, MA
>
>
> [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
>
>
>

I just wanted to add a couple of further thoughts on this saying. It is also to
be found in the Diatessaron, as follows:

Henceforth there shall be five in
one house, three of them disagreeing with two, and the two with the
three. The father shall become hostile to his son, and the son to his
father; and the mother to her daughter, and the daughter to her mother;
and the mother in law to her daughter in law, and the daughter in law to
her mother in law: and a man's enemies shall be the people of his house.

The above is closest to the Lukan version, and is no doubt dependent upon it.
What interests me is the "henceforth" at the beginning. This corresponds to
Luke's "from now on" and the "jin tenou" in the Coptic of the Pistis Sophia. But
Thomas has no such phrase. Since  the Thomas version of this saying is the
shortest and least elaborate, the ordinary rules of textual criticism would
dictate that it be considered the earliest.

--Don

  "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library."


--Jorge Luís Borges

>

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thank you for that post--quite interesting. I'd just like to point out that
> Thomas and Luke are actually even closer than you have indicated in your
English
> translations. The word used in Luke is "oikos," the literal and primary
meaning
> of which is "house."
>
> It is interesting to note that the Pistis Sophia (p. 301, 302) also gives a
> partial version of this saying, according to the Thomas-Luke tradition, with
the
> 5-3-2 formula. The Coptic of the P.S., according to the transliteration scheme
> that I use, is as follows:
>
> jin tenou gar oun-tiou naSOpe hen ouEi enouOt. oun-Soment napOS ejen snau. anO
> snau ejen Soment.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Don Traxler
>

Kevin wrote:
> Luke seems to have had two versions before him - one similar to Thomas 16b
> and one similar to Matthew 10:35 (or Micah 7:6) - which he has combined
> and conflated. That would explain Luke's detailed comparisons to Thomas at
> the beginning of his passage as well as the overly verbose ending as he
> tried to logically adapt the pattern found in the Thomas version (young
> vs. old *and* old vs. young) to all the additional family pairs in the
> Micah/Matthew version (daughter/mother and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law).

Myself, I don't find it convincing that the reader/listener was supposed to
infer that the "two" in 16b are the elder generation (so that "father" =
parents) and that the "three" are the younger generation (so that "son" =
any offspring *and* spouses!). Why not simply say "the young against the
old and the old against the young"? But maybe there's something more
insidious going on - perhaps we should understand "father" as
"God-the-father" and "son" as "God-the-son", so that by implication, two
orthodox Jewish parents worship the "father", while three Jewish-Christian
young'uns worship the "son"? If GTh was composed, as one book suggests,
by those who were "Jews No More", this would make sense.

Mike

Hi Don, you wrote:
> ... Pistis Sophia (p. 301, 302) also gives a partial version of this
> saying ...

Page 301 and 302 of what?

> The Coptic of the P.S. ... is as follows ...

Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think anyone here can understand
the Coptic off the top of their head. Maybe you could provide some
English under the Coptic line?

Mike

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Johnson" <achilles377@...> wrote:
>
> Luke seems to have had two versions before him - one similar to
Thomas 16b
> and one similar to Matthew 10:35 (or Micah 7:6) - which he has
combined and
> conflated. That would explain Luke's detailed comparisons to Thomas
at the
> beginning of his passage as well as the overly verbose ending as he
tried to
> logically adapt the pattern found in the Thomas version (young vs.
old *and*
> old vs. young) to all the additional family pairs in the Micah/Matthew
> version (daughter/mother and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law).
>

Hi Kevin,

This saying has often been cited as an example of Thomas' knowledge of
Luke. Christopher Tuckett is a good example of this. I agree with this,
because I find Thomas' knowledge of Luke convincing on other grounds.
Those of us who support the Farrer hypothesis would argue that in this
saying we have Luke using Matthew and that Luke's version has
influenced Thomas (although Thomas does not necessarily have Luke's
Gospel in front of him).

Regards, Richard Godijn

>
> Hi Don, you wrote:
> > ... Pistis Sophia (p. 301, 302) also gives a partial version of this
> > saying ...
>
> Page 301 and 302 of what?
>

Sorry, those are standard page numbers in the Codex Askewianus, referred to by
Schwartze, Mead, Schmidt, et al.

> > The Coptic of the P.S. ... is as follows ...
>
> Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think anyone here can understand
> the Coptic off the top of their head. Maybe you could provide some
> English under the Coptic line?
>

Well, I know that you can understand it, Mike, and I'll bet that quite a few
others here can, too. Anyway, here is the literal translation:

"For from  this time there will be five in a single house: there will be three 
divided against two, and two against three."

The Coptic phrase "jin tenou" literally means "as from now" or "from now on," as
we would say in American English (Spanish "desde ahora" is an exact
translation). This phrase seems to have been added to the tradition after the
time of compilation of GTh.

Best,

--Don

Hi, Don -

Thanks for your responses and for pointing out the parallels in the Pistis
Sophia and in the Diatessaron. By the way, which particular version of the
Diatessaron did you find that in (such as Dutch, Tuscany, etc.)? While I
understand your interest in the opening "Henceforth" of the Diatessaron
version, which is indicative of Luke, I found the ending significant - "a
man's enemies shall be the people of his house." This is only to be found in
Micah and Matthew. So it looks like the Diatessaron combines the two
canonical versions - a trait which is, of course, completely consistent with
that type of a gospel harmony.

Your point about "oikos" is well-taken. To tell you the truth, the parallels
between Luke and Thomas here seemed so obvious, I never did drag out the
interlinear NT to check on Luke's exact wording.

> Since the Thomas version of this saying is the shortest
> and least elaborate, the ordinary rules of textual criticism
> would dictate that it be considered the earliest.

Yes, exactly so. This was a simple sort of rule-of-thumb, litmus test
derived from form-criticism which is often overlooked. It is also true that
most of the parallel sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas pass this test.

Regards,

- Kevin Johnson


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

Hi, Mike -

I did not mean to imply that the "two" represented the older generation (the
parents) and the "three" represented the younger generation. I was just
pointing out that Micah (and Matthew's) version only portrayed the younger
generation opposing the older, while Thomas contained an example of both
young and old opposing each other. It is significant because it looks like
Luke took over the idea of young and old opposing each other and carried it
to its logical conclusion, which made for a rather strained and prolonged
ending to the saying in Luke.

Nor is the idea that the conflict is somehow limited to parents vs. children
(and/or their spouses) supported by the context of Micah 7:6, since the
preceding verse (7:5) warns: "Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in
a friend. Even with her who lies in your embrace be careful of your words."

Regards,

- Kevin Johnson


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

Hi Don,

I was surprised to discover that the only thing I have on the PS in my
library is some excerpts published in Schneemelcher/Wilson's "New
Testament Apocrypha". Maybe that's because PS is too large to fit
into a collection of texts. In any case, going online, the most accessible
English translation seems to be that of G.R.S. Mead (1921). A free pdf
download of Mead's book (copyright now evidently expired) is available
at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ps/index.htm

Mead's page-markings are a little unclear, but it appears that the
passage you quoted occurs on page 302, not split between 301
and 302 (if that's what you meant). The Gnostic Society Library
also has Mead's translation (not downloadable) at:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/psoph.htm

BTW, what book/source do you yourself use for PS? It looks like
the Schmidt/MacDermot 1978 Brill edition is the one to have, since
it has the Coptic - and a nice font it is, too. However, it's out of print.
(ref: http://books.google.com/books?id=srs3AAAAIAAJ)
Googlebooks has an extensive preview, but, maddeningly, not the
pages relevant to the quote. (As you know, MacDermot also did
the Schmidt version of the Books of Jeu, but with an awful font.)

As to our members' knowledge of Coptic, I'm afraid your estimate
is way too optimistic. In any case, we surely want our writings to be
accessible to anyone with an interest in GTh, whether they know
Coptic or Greek or neither.

Regards,
Mike

Hi, Richard -

Thank you for your comments.

You wrote:

> This saying has often been cited as an example of Thomas' knowledge of
> Luke. Christopher Tuckett is a good example of this. I agree with this,
> because I find Thomas' knowledge of Luke convincing on other grounds.

Yes, those who argue that Thomas is dependent on the canonical gospels in
general not surprisingly tend to find Thomas to be dependent on Luke in
specific instances where they alone have details in common. As you may have
surmised by now, I'm not among that camp, although I am willing to listen to
reason. Of course, most of the evidence can be argued either way. I think it
was Crossan who once said something to the effect that any decent exegete
should be able to provide five arguments in either direction for any
specific parallel between Thomas and the canonical gospels.

In this particular case, if we refer to Thomas' version as A and Matthew's
version as B, Luke's version is a combination of A and B. To argue that
Thomas' version is dependent on Luke is to argue that the author of Thomas
has taken only the A portion of the saying from Luke and conveniently
dropped the B portion which is precisely where Luke overlaps Matthew. It
seems much more logical to me to believe that Luke has combined the two
versions of the saying (and created a sort of tortured ending in the
process) than to believe that the author of Thomas took only the
non-Matthean portions of the saying from Luke.

At some point when it is convenient for you, I would be very interested in
hearing your "other grounds" for being convinced that the author of Thomas
was familiar with Luke.

> Those of us who support the Farrer hypothesis would argue that in this
> saying we have Luke using Matthew and that Luke's version has
> influenced Thomas (although Thomas does not necessarily have Luke's
> Gospel in front of him).

"Luke using Matthew" does not account for Luke's details concerning the five
in a house, the three against two, the father against the son, etc., since
these are not to be found in Matthew (nor in Micah). Would you agree that
these aspects of Luke's version must have come from a different source than
Matthew, sometimes called "special Luke" or "special L?" Keep in mind that
the very first thing Luke tells us in his gospel is that he is familiar with
"many" written accounts of the story he is about to tell. I would submit to
you that the source Luke drew from here for the details which are not in
Matthew must have been a collection of sayings which was either an early
version of the Gospel of Thomas or another collection that happened to have
a saying exactly like the second half of logion 16 of GThomas.

Regards,

- Kevin Johnson


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

Kevin wrote:
>
> Hi, Don -
>
> Thanks for your responses and for pointing out the parallels in the Pistis
> Sophia and in the Diatessaron. By the way, which particular version of the
> Diatessaron did you find that in (such as Dutch, Tuscany, etc.)?

I used a version that was up as a text file on Early Christian Writings (now,
unfortunately, no longer available. Perhaps Peter can tell us more about it.
Unfortunately I didn't make any notes about it, but it is apparently based on a
Latin MS, with lacunae filled in from an Arabic translation from Syriac. I
believe the passage I quoted was XIII, 20.

> While I
> understand your interest in the opening "Henceforth" of the Diatessaron
> version, which is indicative of Luke, I found the ending significant - "a
> man's enemies shall be the people of his house." This is only to be found in
> Micah and Matthew. So it looks like the Diatessaron combines the two
> canonical versions - a trait which is, of course, completely consistent with
> that type of a gospel harmony.
>
Yes, quite right.

> Your point about "oikos" is well-taken. To tell you the truth, the parallels
> between Luke and Thomas here seemed so obvious, I never did drag out the
> interlinear NT to check on Luke's exact wording.
>
> > Since the Thomas version of this saying is the shortest
> > and least elaborate, the ordinary rules of textual criticism
> > would dictate that it be considered the earliest.
>
> Yes, exactly so. This was a simple sort of rule-of-thumb, litmus test
> derived from form-criticism which is often overlooked. It is also true that
> most of the parallel sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas pass this test.
>

The question in my mind is, why is it so often overlooked? To overlook it, as
many proponents of a late dating for GTh do, impresses me as a form of special
pleading. It seems to me that the terseness of the parallels in GTh and  the
general catchword structure are strongly suggestive of a very early sayings
collection.

Best regards,

--Don

Mike wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
> I was surprised to discover that the only thing I have on the PS in my
> library is some excerpts published in Schneemelcher/Wilson's "New
> Testament Apocrypha". Maybe that's because PS is too large to fit
> into a collection of texts.

Yes, it's 390 pages long in Coptic.

  In any case, going online, the most accessible
> English translation seems to be that of G.R.S. Mead (1921). A free pdf
> download of Mead's book (copyright now evidently expired) is available
> at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ps/index.htm
>

I use Mead's 1896 edition, which is available in a free download from Google
Books (17Mb).

> Mead's page-markings are a little unclear, but it appears that the
> passage you quoted occurs on page 302, not split between 301
> and 302 (if that's what you meant).

I'm not sure about the 1921 edition, but in the 1896 edition Mead shows actual
page numbers of the Codex in parentheses. They are also shown in the Latin
translation of Schwartze, edited by Petermann (available also in several places
as a free download), and in the  editions of C. Schmidt (of which I  have the
1925, with Coptic only). My page references were correct. The passage I quoted
was not split between two pages, it was repeated several times in the space of
two pages (the Pistis Sophia can be pretty repetitious).


  The Gnostic Society Library
> also has Mead's translation (not downloadable) at:
>
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/psoph.htm
>
> BTW, what book/source do you yourself use for PS?

For the Coptic, I have both Schmidt 1925 and Schwartze (in some cases they have
differing readings); for Latin, I have Schwartze; for English, I have Mead 1896.

  It looks like
> the Schmidt/MacDermot 1978 Brill edition is the one to have, since
> it has the Coptic - and a nice font it is, too. However, it's out of print.
> (ref: http://books.google.com/books?id=srs3AAAAIAAJ)
> Googlebooks has an extensive preview, but, maddeningly, not the
> pages relevant to the quote. (As you know, MacDermot also did
> the Schmidt version of the Books of Jeu, but with an awful font.)
>

I use it for bedtime reading, and I guess I've gotten used to it--I don't really
mind it.

> As to our members' knowledge of Coptic, I'm afraid your estimate
> is way too optimistic. In any case, we surely want our writings to be
> accessible to anyone with an interest in GTh, whether they know
> Coptic or Greek or neither.
>

Yes, I'm definitely in agreement with that.

--Don

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Exolinguist <exolinguist@...> wrote:

> I used a version that was up as a text file on Early Christian
Writings (now, unfortunately, no longer available. Perhaps Peter can
tell us more about it. Unfortunately I didn't make any notes about it,
but it is apparently based on a Latin MS, with lacunae filled in from
an Arabic translation from Syriac. I believe the passage I quoted was
XIII, 20.

Hi Don,

13:20 is correct. I mirrored ECW a couple of weeks ago for offline
study. ECW Diatessaron is the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
(1895). According to the ECW "Introduction to the Diatessaron of
Tatian," also by Roberts-Donaldson, it is "a translation into English
of an Arabic text, published at Rome in 1888, in a volume entitled in
Arabic Diatessaron, which Titianus Compiled from the Four Gospels,"
edited by Vatican Scriptor P. Agostino Ciasca.

I am nearly done with a THREADS tree for "Five in a House." I will
send that in tomorrow, after completing the reconstructed texts for QS
43 and the Diatessaron precursor, but I can tell you the tree has
Thomas 16:3 at one end, and Micah 7:6 at the other end (!), closest to
Matthew. This actually makes sense, if Matthew's sources were QS 43
and Micah 7:6. What's more, the reconstruction involves no jumping of
text units at all - everything flows down the tree from Thomas to
Matthew.

Here is what the tree looks like (* = reconstructed precursor). The
main trunk runs from *GThom to *GMatt, with branches to PSophia,
GThom, GLuke, and Diat; and from Micah. I used Mead's PSophia, but I
should take a look at the Coptic posted earlier.

PSophia 116
|
*GThom 16:4 -> GThom 16:4
|
*QS 43 -> GLuke 12:52-53
|
*Diat 13:20 -> Diat 13:20
|
*GMatt 10:35-36 <- Micah 7:6

regards,
Paul

This is the second in a series of posts that will take a closer look at the book
THOMAS AND TATIAN (subtitled The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and
the Diatessaron), by Nicholas Perrin (Brill, 2002).

The first part of this book (through p. 47) was not very conclusive. It
re-presented a lot of information, previously published by scholars such as
Quispel and Guillaumont, suggestive of a Semitic Vorlage for the Gospel of
Thomas. To Perrin the material was indicative of a specifically Syriac Vorlage,
but this was not demonstrated in any compelling way, at least in my opinion.

We now move on to the second part of Perrin’s book, entitled The Evidence of
Catchwords (pp. 49-170), which amounts to about half of the book.

I must say that I was very disappointed with this section of the book. On page
50 Perrin gives us his definition of a catchword: “ a catchword is any word
which can be semantically, etymologically, or phonologically associated with
another word found in an adjacent logion.” This strikes me as too broad, since
it includes even adverbs and pronouns that are far too frequent to be meaningful
as catchwords. Perrin’s catchword list is bloated, first of all, by the
inclusion of such words of dubious value for use as a catchword. He even counts
the (sometimes many) repetitions of a word within a single parable. He further
increases the size of his list by counting each member of a link as a separate
catchword, something I have seen no other author do. By such techniques, he
arrives at a very large number of catchwords.

Many of Perrin’s Syriac “catchwords” are quite fanciful, apart from the
fact that no Syriac text of GTh exists. One of his pairs, near the top of the
list, is “whoever” (kl d-) and “all” (kl). I don’t know how anyone
else will feel about it, but this is not convincing to me as a catchword. He
goes on to relate “in the sea” (bthwm’) in L 3.2 to “in days” (bywmyn)
in L 4.1. This had me scratching my head, even after reading his note explaining
that Miroslav Marcovich was probably right in hypothesizing that some form of
“thwm” (the abyss, the deep) must have been behind the translation variant
“under the earth” found in POxy 654.9. He wants to keep this evidence of a
possible Semitic Vorlage in his arsenal, so he does a completely illogical thing
in pairing “bthwm” (“in the sea” or “in the deep”) with “bywmyn”
(in days). This does not fit even his own lax definition of a catchword. Then he
goes on to say
  (correctly) that a sound such as “bym’” (in the sea) would have been
virtually repeated in 4.1 with “ bywmyn” (in days), but this is not the form
that he includes in his catchword list!

Perrin made the total of supposed Syriac catchwords even greater compared to the
number in Coptic or Greek by simply ignoring at least 26 non-controversial
catchwords (or about 52 the way Perrin counts them) that actually DO appear in
Coptic or Greek according to the list on pp. 100-102 of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS AND
JESUS, by Stephen J. Patterson. Patterson’s list, by the way, is a good one,
but even it is not complete for Coptic catchwords. It was available, though,
nine years before Perrin’s book was published, and he evidently chose to
ignore it. What is more disturbing though, is when Perrin fails to count one of
the words on Patterson’s list for Coptic, but does count it for Syriac! Some
examples:  on p. 110 of Perrin’s book, “CloC” (Coptic for bed/couch) is
not shown or counted, but the corresponding Syriac word is; the same is true on
p. 130 for “kibe” (breast), and on p. 144 for “maau” (mother).  And on
p. 155, he misses a
  perfectly good Coptic catchword “ei” (come/go) while inserting a quite
ridiculous one in the Syriac column [“prys’” (spread out) related to
“tpwq” (leave)]. One is forced to the conclusion that Perrin had a desired
result in mind and, consciously or unconsciously, did everything he could to
achieve it.

From what I have read of the book so far (about 75%), I have to say that I am
surprised that Brill elected to publish it.

In the next post in this series, we will examine Perrin's case for GTh
dependence on the Diatessaron.

--Don Traxler

  "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library."


--Jorge LuĂ­s Borges

Hi, Don -

We discussed the fact that the parallels in Thomas are often the shortest
and least elaborate which, according to form criticism, should make them the
earliest versions, and that this aspect of Thomas is often overlooked. In
regard to this, you wrote:

> The question in my mind is, why is it so often overlooked?
> To overlook it, as many proponents of a late dating for GTh
> do, impresses me as a form of special pleading. It seems
> to me that the terseness of the parallels in GTh and the
> general catchword structure are strongly suggestive of a
> very early sayings collection.

Yes, I could not agree more. The very form of the gospel - a sayings
collection with little to no narrative about Jesus - is in itself an
argument in favor of a very early dating. This is usually ignored and taken
for granted as if it were a common thing, but it is a rare thing indeed.
Although the Gospel of Thomas is a pure sayings collection that
makes extensive use of catchwords and preserves sayings in a short and
simple form, this is somehow ignored or explained away. But as you point
out, these features are indications of a very early date.

If we ask, as you do, "why is it so often overlooked?", the discussion turns
down many different avenues, most of which range beyond the scope of this
particular thread. But I am pleased to see that you understand the
implications of this type of evidence.

Regards,

- Kevin Johnson


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

----- Original Message -----
   From: Paul Lanier
   To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:43 PM
   Subject: [GTh] Re: Five in a house


   --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Exolinguist <exolinguist@...> wrote:

   > I used a version that was up as a text file on Early Christian
   Writings (now, unfortunately, no longer available. Perhaps Peter can
   tell us more about it. Unfortunately I didn't make any notes about it,
   but it is apparently based on a Latin MS, with lacunae filled in from
   an Arabic translation from Syriac. I believe the passage I quoted was
   XIII, 20.

   Hi Don,

   13:20 is correct. I mirrored ECW a couple of weeks ago for offline
   study. ECW Diatessaron is the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
   (1895). According to the ECW "Introduction to the Diatessaron of
   Tatian," also by Roberts-Donaldson, it is "a translation into English
   of an Arabic text, published at Rome in 1888, in a volume entitled in
   Arabic Diatessaron, which Titianus Compiled from the Four Gospels,"
   edited by Vatican Scriptor P. Agostino Ciasca.



   This translation is online at various places See for example

   http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-07.htm#P538_71276



   Andrew Criddle
   Recent Activity
     a..  5New Files
   Visit Your Group
   Special K Group
   on Yahoo! Groups

   Join the challenge

   and lose weight.

   Change your life
   with Yahoo! Groups

   balance nutrition,

   activity & well-being.

   Dog Groups
   on Yahoo! Groups

   discuss everything

   related to dogs.
   .


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