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

Re: Context is Everything

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    ... bit. I pointed out that I liked it, too, so what are you tryin to say there, Jana? LOL Seriously, I was merely trying to make a case for there still
    Message 1 of 137 , Mar 1, 2006

       

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

      >
      > Hey, Gerry.
      >
      > > Y'all have certainly raised some interesting points here lately. I
      > > like the idea of an "equality" being expressed in the "three
      > > Marys" passage, but I'm not sure that I necessarily get that
      > > from either "partner" or "companion."
      >
      >
      > I wonder if it's a girl thang that I jumped on that partner/equality bit.

       

      I pointed out that I liked it, too, so what are you tryin' to say there, Jana?  LOL  Seriously, I was merely trying to make a case for there still being some potential ambiguity in those terms themselves (just as with the word "intercourse," which we will still revisit later).  In that passage though, I think that Layton's choice not only to utilize those words ("companion" and "partner") for the Greek and Coptic terms but to use them in that order was particularly effective.


      > Then again, it does make me think of all that Bride/Bridegroom stuff….

      As well it should, and as we will yet explore.  The thing is, while it may bring to mind all that bride and bridegroom stuff for us, the same translation can make the alternative history folks hear wedding bells.  Why?  What does GPh say about the difference between a secular marriage and the mystery of the bridal chamber?



      > Between you and Lady C., I am convinced that I need to have the

      > Layton translation. I think it hits that part of my brain that I
      > use. ;) I couldn't help but be reminded of Monty Python when you
      > alluded to repititious scripture:
      >
      >
      > "And the LORD spake, saying, first shalt thou take out the Holy Pin.
      > Then, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shall be
      > the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be
      > three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two,
      > excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once
      > the number three, being the third number, be reached, is counted,
      > then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe,
      > who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."
      >

       

      Too funny!  Strangely though, even before the comedic extremes take off there, that initial part (…the LORD spake, saying…) reminds me of something a linguist friend told me once.  I'm sure the phenomenon has a name, but I can't recall it.  At any rate, that sort of repetition can often be found among speakers of Semitic languages.  In the case of Coptic, I think it has to do with an inherent difficulty in relating indirect speech, or something along those lines.



      >

      > >If the original scribes felt it necessary to go to that trouble,
      > >then perhaps it's worth our consideration as well. Perhaps we can
      > >find additional meaning for this Coptic word, and see exactly how
      > >that significance is borne out within the context of the Gospel of
      > >Philip. It may be a bit of a wedding crasher for the alternative
      > >history crowd, but critically thinking Gnostic sympathizers should
      > >be able to relate to it.
      >
      >
      > Well, I guess the "alternative history crowd" still sensed the same
      > thing--something is a bit iffy. What's next, Gerry? I feel you
      > have something up your sleeve...
      >
      > jana
      >

       

      Nah, that crowd might have sensed something, but not the same thing.  As soon as I can pull this thresher from my sleeve, we will continue to separate wheat from chaff.  I have unexpected company coming Friday though, and I'm not at all ready for that, so we'll have to resume this later.

      Gerry

    • 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!

        Gerry

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