8253Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man
- Oct 3, 2008Hi Judy, you wrote:
> I think you need to say that when there is no who-phrase, the pAgreed. From within Thomas, I'm reminded of L.78.1 ("Why did
> (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or maybe even *often*
> or *usually* funcitons as an untranslated capitalizer, depending
> on the context.
you come out to the wilderness?").
> I think that the problem here is that both translations appear to beIf we're talking about 'p-rwme', then I think 'Man', 'Humanity', 'Human
> possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so the
> reader needs to make decisions about which is the right one in the
> particular context. Although I have not had time to look at the texts in
> question, it would seem to me entirely possible that Thomas might
> sometimes use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a human being".
beings', even 'the human being' are pretty much interchangeable, but
not '_a_ human being', which I wouldn't use for that.
> And, of course, what we decide makes more sense in any given contextOh, I don't know about that. I think one can make these decisions based
> will depend on our particular understandings of what kind of text Thomas
> is - gnostic, mystic etc.
on thematic consistency with other sayings whose meaning is pretty clear,
without having any particular understanding of what kind of text Thomas is.
At least, that's what I think I'm doing (:-)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>