Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: New Member

Expand Messages
  • Brenda
    ... Gerry, LOL. You knew you d have my attention at the mention of irreverent humor didn t you? Perhaps because you ve seen me on other lists or it could have
    Message 1 of 137 , Feb 5, 2006

      It does sound like a rather "complicated" family dynamic, doesn't it!  ;-)

      What can I say, Brenda … good help is hard to find … and, evidently, the same could be said with respect to Coptic copyists back in the day.

      As long as your funny bone is already tickled, I'll shamelessly refer you to another post from almost a year ago, but kindly brace yourself for my irreverent humor; it seems I was feeling particularly punchy that day.  Some of the points I made there are actually pertinent to my aims in the current discussion (and the rest of it is nothing but obscure pop-cultural references embellishing my rant!) :




      LOL. You knew you'd have my attention at the mention of irreverent humor didn't you? Perhaps because you've seen me on other lists or it could have been the Chinatown reference I suppose.

      So, of course, I clicked the link as fast as I could. I should probably point out that most of what I bring to the current discussion is my appreciation of irreverence and that the only language I am really comfortable with is English. And after that disclaimer, I have a question.

      Okay, that reference made me curious, so I looked up that particular passage in the original Greek sources I had on hand: The Interlinear Bible (Hendrickson) and the Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Nestle-Aland). The former includes the phrase referring to “the firstborn” (which is lacking in the latter), so I’ve utilized the extended version for my example below (visible in Symbol font, if you have it):

      KATA MAQQAION (1, 24-25)

          diegerJeiV de ‘o Iwshj apo tou ‘upnou 
          epoihsen ‘wV prosetaxen autw ‘o aggeloV Kuriou, 
          kai parelabe thn gunaika autou, 
          kai ouk eginwsken authn ‘ewV ‘ou eteke ton ‘uion 
          authV ton prwtotokon. 
          kai ekalese to onoma autou Ihsoun. 


          And Joseph, being aroused from sleep,
          did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,
          and took his wife,
          and did not know her until she bore her son,
          her firstborn.
          And he called his name Jesus.

      Or, as the compilers of the SV would have us believe . . .

              Joseph got up and did what the messenger of the Lord told him: he took < Mary as > his wife. He did not have sex with her until she had given birth to a son. Joseph named him Jesus.

      What all is implied in the original verb used for "took?" In the English at least there could be more going on there in the statement that Joseph woke up aroused, took his wife, but didn't know her until after her son was born. It could be saying that something outside Joseph used his body to create a life and that even though his body had already had sex with her, Joseph himself didn't know her sexually until after her son was born.

      Of course, I could also joke that Joseph didn't know his wife until after her son was born because those pregnancy hormones can turn you into another person on your very best day...

      I cannot help but wonder what rating that new translation is going to get once Song of Solomon starts to read like a letter to Penthouse. ROFL.


    • Gerry
      ... Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. ... And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt. There s something
      Message 137 of 137 , Apr 8, 2006

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@...> wrote:

        > [. . .]
        > Gerry and Lady C.,thanks for all of the info and links.…


        Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. 


        > Gerry, after looking at the National Geographic link, I was

        > reminded of some suggestions I gave you on faded writing. I'm feeling
        > really good about watery sepia ink and sandpaper...and sand
        > horizontally and vertically...with the gray sandpaper...


        And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt.  There's something about the dual-layered papyrus and its almost glossy sheen that made me wonder if such coarse measures would destroy the whole thing, but the more I've thought about it (along with your renewed convictions), the more I believe it would indeed yield a desirable finish.  I imagine the weathered results would be akin to repeatedly wadding up a sheet of paper to the point that it becomes more like a thin piece of cloth rather than a crisp piece of paper.  Only this way, you avoid the wrinkles!


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.